The Visual Computer (2022) 38:1845–1870

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-022-02418-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT)

for high-performance JPEG image compression
Ibrahim Furkan Ince1,2 · Faruk Bulut3 · Ilker Kilic4 · Mustafa Eren Yildirim1,5 · Omer Faruk Ince6,7

Accepted: 18 January 2022 / Published online: 8 March 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
In mathematical theory, the discrete cosine transform (DCT) is a lossless orthogonal transformation method which means it
outputs exactly the same values of the input after the inverse transformation. However, this is impossible in today’s technology
due to the limited capacity of processors in which the maximum value that a number can take is 264 − 1 (20-digit number)
in a 64-bit register. Since the DCT employs the floating values higher than this precision, there occurs a round-off error
which causes a particular loss of information after the inverse transformation. For this reason, the dynamic range of the DCT
coefficients should be reduced so that fewer precision digits are employed in the DCT calculations, thereby the round-off
error and loss of information are minimized. In this study, conventional DCT equations are improved both in forward and
inverse transformation for the sake of high-performance JPEG image compression. The proposed method reduces the dynamic
range of the DCT coefficients and provides a low dynamic range DCT (LDR-DCT) by weighting the DCT coefficients with
respect to the frequency level. The effectiveness of the proposed LDR-DCT method is experimented mainly by observing
the inter-correlation between the compression ratio and the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) values which is defined as
the compression performance (CP). An extensive experimental benchmarking study is done using the publicly available
KODAK image dataset in both grayscale and RGB color spaces, separately. According to the experimental results, the
average compression performance (CP) is increased up to about 26% in grayscale images and about 17% in RGB images
when the quantization factors (21–121) are employed in the quantization process. Additionally, it is observed that there is an
average increment in the compression performance (CP) up to about 8% in grayscale images and about 7% in RGB images
when the standard IrfanView quantization tables (quality level of 40 to the quality level of 90) are applied. On the other hand,
in the absence of quantization when either the quantization factor of 1 or the standard IrfanView quantization table with the
quality level of 100 is applied, it is also observed that there is an average increment in the PSNR value up to about 15% in
grayscale images and about 33% in RGB images with respect to the average PSNR values of 24 images in the KODAK image
dataset. Therefore, though the proposed LDR-DCT method without quantization does not change the compression ratio, it
improves the quality of the output obtained after the inverse transform dramatically. In other words, the conventional DCT
method should be replaced by the proposed LDR-DCT method in certain areas where compression is not required. Besides,
the study claims that the proposed LDR-DCT method can provide at least the same JPEG image quality as the conventional
DCT method with much higher compression ratios if the quantization tables are redesigned accordingly.

Keywords Low dynamic range · Wavelet transform · Round-off error · Loss of information · Quantization factors · Lossless
image compression

1 Introduction
As digital technology is taking a huge role in daily life, data
compression methods for information transfer and storage
B Faruk Bulut
farukbulut@arel.edu.tr
https://scholar.google.com.tr/citations?user=9vWaGEIAAAAJ&hl=en
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
are increasingly in demand. The quantity and the quality are
the major two characteristics of the data that are employed as
the performance metrics for this purpose. The first character-
istic refers to the quantity of information to be obtained after
the compression. The second characteristic is the amount of
quality kept after compression which relies not only on the
data but also on the device. One of the subsets of data com-
pression is known as image compression which minimizes

123
1846
the storage size of the image while maintaining the quality
of the data to an acceptable standard. Thus, it is possible to
reconstruct the original image to fit the human visual per-
ception with the minimum amount of loss in the quality [1,
2].
There are several methods to compress an image to
decrease its storage size and make it use smaller physical
space [3]. In this area, it is possible to split these methods
into two sections as lossy and lossless image compression
methods. Lossy compression is a method for generating an
estimate of the original data, such as pictures, where the loss
of insignificant information is acceptable, which allows a
more significant compression ratio than the lossless com-
pression. Nevertheless, it tends to suffer from the damage of
some data. Lossless compression is beneficial for perceptual
applications such as archival photographs, medical imaging,
and technical investigations as it does not allow any infor-
mation loss [4]. The purpose is to decompress the abstracted
information to reconstruct the original image ideally.
In recent years, the increasingly widespread use of deep
learning in computer vision and image processing provides
the possible usage of deep learning models in image and
video compression [5]. In image compression, most deep
learning-based studies are auto-encoder-like designs. It is
possible to divide these studies into two as block level and
image level. One of the image-level techniques is end-to-end
optimized image compression by Cai et al. [6]. Instead of
adopting binary quantization, the authors prefer the multi-
level quantization method. Furthermore, they come up with
a new loss function for rate-distortion cost optimization. Baig
et al. introduce another deep learning-based image compres-
sion technique by focusing on the colorization problems to
compress the chrominance components of the image data
[7]. Some other approaches [8, 9] employ different network
structures and different methods for rate-distortion cost opti-
mization. For the auto-encoder-like schemes, Jiang et al. [10]
introduce a novel convolutional neural network (CNN) based
image compression method in which a CNN network first
down-scales an input image, compresses it, and then another
CNN network up-scales the image. The proposed approach
provides a dynamic range reduction of the pixel intensities in
the image and consequently increases the compression ratio
with less amount of loss in the quality.
The ultimate goal of image compression is to obtain com-
pressed images with higher compression ratios while keeping
the image quality. In this regard, the transform coding (TC)
is a well-known solution in modern image and video com-
pression problems. Most of the current lossy compression
systems receive aid from TC in various forms. For instance,
JPEG prefers discrete cosine transform (DCT) [11], while
JPEG2000 uses different varieties of the discrete wavelet
transform (DWT) [11]. In addition, MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 uti-
lizes the integer cosine transform (ICT) at various block sizes
123
I. F. Ince et al.
[12], while the high-efficiency video coding (HEVC) applies
even more block sizes [13].
The discrete cosine transform (DCT), which is capable of
finding out the lower and the higher important frequency area
of the data, plays an important role in both image and video
compressions such as JPEG, MPEG1, MPEG2, and H.26X
[14]. Even though there are many transform techniques [15],
JPEG utilizes the DCT to compress images since it is simple,
invertible, and easy to modularize for the different discrete
dataset applications [11].
In the literature, DCT is widely improved and combined
with other methods in plenty of ways. Authors [16] propose
a novel orthogonal approximate DCT transform in which the
transform replaces the elements of the shift in the matrix with
the null elements. According to the outcomes, the study out-
performs the other approximate transform methods at a lower
computational cost. In a study [17], the authors use the DCT
with a new color space to develop a color image compres-
sion method. They use the bat algorithm (BA) to optimize
the cost function to reduce the low-energy DCT coefficients.
In another study [18], the authors present a hexadata (HD)
coding method based on the two-level DCT. The approach
contains extra steps in the compression phase. Among these
steps, the most important one is the compression of high-
frequency data by HD coding that increases the compression
ratio. Their results indicate that the method generates high-
quality images with high compression ratios. However, the
system suffers from the complexity of the HD method, espe-
cially in large-sized images. In another study [19], the authors
present a DCT-based compression method with luminous
quantization. In encryption, they use advanced encryption
standards (AES) and data encryption standards (DAS) for
the tests. They perform the tests on five pre-selected images
and conclude that the DCT-AES combination removes the
redundancy on the image while supplying sufficient security
during data transmission. Besides, in another paper [20], an
adaptive block scanning method along with DCT is presented
for still color image compression. As an adaptive block scan-
ning method, the authors employ four different scan types:
horizontal, vertical, zigzag, and Hilbert in order to obtain the
DCT coefficients from the extracted coefficients. The authors
conduct the tests on the three number of publicly available
datasets. The results show that their method achieves high
performance in terms of peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR)
and structural similarity (SSIM) measurements.
Except from these in one study [21], an embedded zero-
tree discrete wavelet transform is combined with DCT
structure while in another study, DCT coefficients are remod-
eled in order to speed up both image and video coding [22].
On the other hand, an efficient method is introduced to restore
an image block by finding out the border pixels of the block
in the DCT domain [23]. Besides in one study [24], a signum
function operator is applied to the conventional DCT for the
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image…
sake of increasing the image quality, in other words, the peak
signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) value of the compressed image.
Similarly, in another paper, a novel method is introduced in
order to reconstruct the image blocks, reducing the number
of border pixels in the DCT domain [25]. In terms of artifact
reduction in another paper, an efficient model is suggested for
the DCT coefficients so that the DCT domain can provide a
significant reduction in the number of blocking artifacts [26].
Likewise, a particular image fusion in the DCT domain is
achieved based on a contrast measure in the JPEG framework
[27]. Additionally, a color image enhancement in the DCT
domain is achieved by scaling the transform coefficients [28].
In terms of coefficient manipulation in one study, the DCT is
improved by simplifying the transformation matrix, reducing
the number of multiplications and bit-shifts to zero [29]. In
a different scheme, an efficient data hiding algorithm in the
DCT coefficient domain is also introduced for H.264/AVC
intra-frames [30]. In order to speed up the DCT, a generalized
recursive algorithm is introduced which is capable of obtain-
ing the orthogonal approximation of the conventional DCT
[31] that is also provided in another study in which a powerful
approximate of DCT is successfully achieved by preserving
both the high energy compaction and the low computational
complexity properties of the DCT [32]. Based on the DCT
in a different study, a novel DCT controller that contains all
the pixels in the range and provides consistent predictions
across all the views is also achieved [33].
Apart from these in another paper, a new improved DCT
method is proposed where the innovation consists of a 3-
level framework; a multiplier-free DCT transformation is
performed, a high-frequency coefficient filtering is applied
and the calculations are made using inexact adders [34].
For the DCT approach, another DCT method is introduced
which uses minimization of the angle between the rows
of the exact DCT matrix and the rows of the approximate
transformation matrix, where the resulting transformation
matrices are orthogonal and have extremely low arithmetic
complexity [35]. Additionally, in another paper, a new out-
sourcing protocol procedure is introduced in order to speed
up 2D-DCT and 2D-IDCT [36]. Except for the speed and
approximation enhancement, a modified DCT model named
dynamic energy analysis DCT (DEADCT) is introduced
for high-performance image compression [37]. The study
presents a novel concept called compression radius and
division of the image. By dividing, the authors dynami-
cally adjust and quantify the radius according to the energy
spectrum of the different pixel blocks to achieve a high com-
pression ratio without losing detailed image functions. In
another study [38], the authors indicate the effects of pre-
processing and post-processing on the monochrome image
compression using DCT. Another study [39] proposes a novel
block transformation method for image compression where
the transformation is DCT-inspired but still performed by
1847
training the different convolutional neural network (CNN)
models. The authors adopt a combination of convolution,
nonlinear mapping, and linear transformation to create a
non-linear transformation and a nonlinear inverse transfor-
mation. According to the experimental results obtained, the
proposed method yields a higher compression ratio than the
conventional DCT in JPEG compression. On the other hand,
an extensive study [40] proposes a DCT-based compression
method with three levels. In the first level, the authors employ
an approximate DCT to eliminate the computational com-
plexity of the multiplication operation, and accordingly, they
compute the DCT by adding the integers and sometimes with
logical shifts. The second level reduces the amount of data.
At last, the third level handles the time delay and power
consumption by using a circuit-level inexact adder for DCT.
Their results perform the compression with low power con-
sumption and time delay with an acceptable accuracy rate.
As a hybrid method in another study [41], a combination of
the DCT and the Haar wavelet transform (HWT) is achieved
for getting a higher PSNR value and compression ratio. In
the study, authors employ HWT and DCT separately on 8 ×
8 blocks. After the quantization, the block with the highest
PSNR is chosen. A single bit indicates the type of transform
applied to that specific block. According to the value of the
received bit (1 or 0), the inverse of the pre-applied transform
is executed on the received block. Their results indicate that
the combined method gives a higher PSNR than the DCT
itself. Moreover, they perform a better edge recovery than
the HWT itself.
According to the extensive literature review presented in
this section, JPEG image compression is well-known as the
lossy compression method in which the loss of information
occurs due to the quantization of the DCT coefficients. How-
ever, there exists a second reason for the information loss
which is widely ignored in the literature, so far. In mathemat-
ical theory, the DCT is a lossless orthogonal transformation
method, meaning that it outputs the same value as the input
after inverse transformation. However, this is not possible
with today’s technology, as processors have limited capac-
ity where the maximum a value can take in a 64-bit register
is 264 − 1 (20 digit number). Since the DCT uses the float-
ing values higher than this precision, rounding errors occur,
and certain information is lost after the inverse transforma-
tion. Therefore, the dynamic range of the DCT coefficients
should be reduced so that fewer precision digits are employed
in the DCT calculations, thereby the round-off error and loss
of information are minimized.
In this study, a novel low dynamic range discrete cosine
transform (LDR-DCT) method is introduced in order to mini-
mize the round-off errors between the forward and the inverse
DCT calculations for high-performance JPEG image com-
pression. As it is well-known from the basic concept of
information theory, the dynamic range of any type of data
123
1848
can be reduced after a successive down-scale and up-scale
operation which results in less amount of physical storage in
the memory. Inspired by this concept, in this study, the con-
ventional DCT equations are improved both in the forward
and the inverse transformation parts. Since it is impossible to
obtain the original data without loss after downscaling them
into a lower resolution, an up-scale operation after a down-
scale operation results in some information loss which turns
out the data with lower quality and less physical size in the
memory. Similarly, in the proposed LDR-DCT method, the
dynamic range is reduced by dominating the high-frequency
coefficients in the forward transformation (down-scale) and
dominating the low-frequency coefficients in the inverse
transformation (up-scale). Because the low-frequency DCT
coefficients keep the major data features mostly visible to
the human eye and high-frequency DCT coefficients keep
the minor data features mostly invisible to the human eye,
there occurs a dramatic information loss in the forward DCT
transform which is almost not compensable in the inverse
DCT transform. This operation refers to the downscaling
in the physical meaning. In order to perform the maxi-
mum amount of compensation in the inverse DCT transform,
low-frequency DCT coefficients become dominant and this
operation refers to the upscaling. Since the perfect compensa-
tion is impossible, after a successive down-scale and up-scale
operation, the proposed method reduces the dynamic range
of DCT coefficients and provides a low dynamic range DCT
(LDR-DCT) which minimizes the round-off error. Because
the successive down-scale (forward transform) and up-scale
(inverse transform) operations are performed with respect to
the weighted frequency level of DCT coefficients which are
linearly indexed in a 1D data vector, a gradual change rather
than a sharp change occurs between these two states which
leads to the minimum amount of loss in the quality. The pro-
posed LDR-DCT method is introduced in two versions as
the original version that is applied in the absence of quanti-
zation and the reverse version that is applied in the existence
of quantization.
The effectiveness of the proposed LDR-DCT method is
verified mainly by observing the inter-correlation between
the compression ratio (CR) and the peak signal-to-noise
ratio (PSNR) values which is defined with a hybrid met-
ric named the compression performance (CP). Besides, the
mean squared error (MSE), the structural similarity index
measure (SSIM), the contrast improvement index (CII), the
absolute mean brightness error (AMBE), the quantization
rate (QR), and the bits per pixel (BPP) are also employed as
the additional performance metrics. An extensive compar-
ative study is performed on the publicly available KODAK
image dataset [42] to prove how the proposed method (LDR-
DCT) improves the existing conventional DCT method [43]
in terms of the JPEG image compression performance by
applying different quantization factors and the standard Irfan-
123
I. F. Ince et al.
View quantization tables [44] at different quality levels. In
addition, experiments are performed separately on grayscale
and RGB images. Experimental results show that using the
proposed LDR-DCT method with the quantization factors
(from 21 to 121) in the quantization process improves the
average compression performance (CP) up to about 26%
for grayscale images and up to about 17% for RGB images.
Besides, using the proposed LDR-DCT method with the stan-
dard IrfanView quantization tables [45] (quality level of 40
to the quality level of 90) improves the compression per-
formance (CP) up to an average of about 8% in grayscale
images and about 7% in RGB images. On the other hand, in
the absence of quantization, when either the quantization fac-
tor of 1 or the standard IrfanView quantization table with the
quality level of 100 is used, based on the average PSNR val-
ues of 24 images in the KODAK image data set, it is observed
that the average PSNR value for grayscale images increases
by up to about 15% and for RGB images by up to about
33%. Therefore, although the proposed LDR-DCT method
does not change the compression ratio without quantization,
it dramatically improves the quality of the output obtained
after the inverse transform. In other words, the conventional
DCT method should be replaced by the proposed LDR-DCT
method in certain areas in which no compression is required.
Besides, it can be seen that the quantization tables are very
useful in that, according to the proposed method, the image
quality practically does not change with an increase in the
compression ratio and the proposed LDR-DCT method can
provide at least the same JPEG image quality of the conven-
tional DCT method with much higher compression ratios if
the quantization tables are redesigned accordingly.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2
describes the methodology and Sect. 3 indicates the experi-
mental benchmarking results. The conclusions are outlined
in Sect. 4, and the data availability is provided in Sect. 5.
2 Materials and methods
This section precisely defines the research problem and
presents the proposed solution as a new method. In order
to investigate the research problem, firstly, the role of DCT
in JPEG compression is explained. Later, conventional DCT
equations are listed in detail. Afterward, the entire JPEG
compression and decompression procedure are demonstrated
within all the quantization and zigzag ordering steps. Finally,
the proposed low dynamic range discrete cosine transform
(LDR-DCT) method is introduced within all the belonging
equations and its performance on minimizing the rounding
errors between the forward and the inverse DCT calculations
is illustrated by using a sample small portion of data.
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image… 1849

Fig. 1 JPEG image compression

and decompression steps

 N −1
2.1 DCT in JPEG compression 2  (2n + 1)kπ
y(k)  α(k) x(n) cos
N 2N
n0
The theory of transformation has played an important role
in the field of image processing for many years and in this k  0, 1, . . . N − 1 (1)
particular subject, there exists still a significant research inter-  N −1
est for its both the theoretical and the applied background. 2  (2n + 1)kπ
x(n)  α(k)y(k) cos
An important progress in image compression is the discrete N 2N
k0
cosine transform (DCT), which is theoretically a lossless
invertible transformation method. The DCT compression is n  0, 1, . . . N − 1 (2)
used as the basis for the JPEG image file format that is firstly
1
presented by the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) α(0)  √ ; α(k)  1; k  0. (3)
in 1992 [45]. The JPEG compresses the images, and the file 2
size is significantly reduced, making it the most widely used
As the initial step in JPEG image compression, the image
image file format in the world [46]. In JPEG compression,
is first divided into 8 × 8 sub-blocks. The next step is to get
data quantization is another fundamental step to reduce the
into the frequency domain, thereby the forward DCT is cal-
dynamic range of the input image which leads to a reduc-
culated by using all the pixel values in each 8 × 8 sub-block
tion in the physical space kept in the memory. For instance,
as the input. After this step, 64 number of DCT coeffi-
in the JPEG compression, the quantization is done by divid-
cients are obtained. Later, the obtained DCT coefficients are
ing the DCT coefficients into the predetermined quantization
grouped into two categories as the 1 number of DC coeffi-
factors and latterly apply a rounding operation and then per-
cient (low-frequency component) and the 63 number of AC
form an inverse transform to go back to a spatial domain.
coefficients (high-frequency components). The DCT is capa-
As the quantization factor increases, the range of the DCT
ble of concentrating most of the signal into the lower spatial
coefficients in the frequency domain becomes considerably
frequencies. Therefore, the DC coefficient is the most impor-
reduced, resulting in higher dynamic range reduction and
tant DCT coefficient in 8 × 8 image blocks since it has much
higher compression ratio. However, quantization methods
more information about the image than all the remaining 63
differ concerning their performance of keeping the image
number of AC coefficients. In other words, the DC coeffi-
quality while increasing the compression ratio. Generally,
cient has the lowest frequency level in the frequency domain
particular quantization tables are being used for this purpose.
and it has the highest amount of visibility by the human eye.
The discrete cosine transform (DCT) is a frequency trans-
Conversely, the AC coefficients are the high-frequency com-
form of the image that is usually used as the first step of
ponents in the frequency domain and they have very little or
JPEG image compression and decompression process seen
almost zero amount of visibility by the human eye. Accord-
in Fig. 1 as follows:
ingly, after finding the 64 number of DCT coefficients in
The discrete cosine transform (DCT) is a space-to-
each 8 × 8 sub-block, the coefficients are quantized by using
frequency domain transformation method that allows a
particular quantization tables (e.g., IrfanView Quantization
particular data sequence to be represented as the sum of
Tables) with different quality levels illustrated in Table 1 as
cosine functions that oscillate at different frequencies. The
follows:
DCT is an orthonormal transform in which 1D Forward DCT
In Table 1, the quantization table with the quality level of
is y  C x. and 1D Inverse DCT is x  C −1 y are defined
100 is not illustrated since all the quantization factors inside
in Eqs. 1 and 2, respectively, where the special condition is
the table are 1 which means it does not perform any quanti-
performed in Eq. 3 as follows:
zation on the DCT coefficients. Except for the quantization
table with the quality level of 100, all the quantization tables

123
1850 I. F. Ince et al.

Table 1 Irfanview quantization tables for JPEG compression in different quality levels [44]
Quality level: 40 Quality level: 50

20 14 13 20 30 50 64 76 16 11 10 16 24 40 51 61
15 15 18 24 33 73 75 69 12 12 14 19 26 58 60 55
18 16 20 30 50 71 86 70 14 13 16 24 40 57 69 56
18 21 28 36 64 109 100 78 14 17 22 29 51 87 80 62
23 28 46 70 85 136 129 96 18 22 37 56 68 109 103 77
30 44 69 80 101 130 141 115 24 35 55 64 81 104 113 92
61 80 98 109 129 151 150 126 49 64 78 87 103 121 120 101
90 115 119 123 140 125 129 124 72 92 95 98 112 100 103 99
Quality Level: 60 Quality Level: 70

13 9 8 13 19 32 41 49 10 7 6 10 14 24 31 37
10 10 11 15 21 46 48 44 7 7 8 11 16 35 36 33
11 10 13 19 32 46 55 45 8 8 10 14 24 34 41 34
11 14 18 23 41 70 64 50 8 10 13 17 31 52 48 37
14 18 30 45 54 87 82 62 11 13 22 34 41 65 62 46
19 28 44 51 65 83 90 74 14 21 33 38 49 62 68 55
39 51 62 70 82 97 96 81 29 38 47 52 62 73 72 61
58 74 76 78 90 80 82 79 43 55 57 59 67 60 62 59
Quality Level: 80 Quality Level: 90

6 4 4 6 10 16 20 24 3 2 2 3 5 8 10 12
5 5 6 8 10 23 24 22 2 2 3 4 5 12 12 11
6 5 6 10 16 23 28 22 3 3 3 5 8 11 14 11
6 7 9 12 20 35 32 25 3 3 4 6 10 17 16 12
7 9 15 22 27 44 41 31 4 4 7 11 14 22 21 15
10 14 22 26 32 42 45 37 5 7 11 13 16 21 23 18
20 26 31 35 41 48 48 40 10 13 16 17 21 24 24 20
29 37 38 39 45 40 41 40 14 18 19 20 22 20 21 20

to zero. Accordingly, the fewer coefficients are saved, the

Fig. 2 Zigzag order rule
from the quality of 40–90 are employed in the quantization
process where the DCT coefficients are divided by the values
which take place in the quantization tables. After the division
operation, a rounding operation is done. After this operation,
some of the coefficients including the DC coefficient, are
stored in memory while the rest of the coefficients are set
more compression is achieved. Later, quantized coefficients
in each 8 × 8 sub-block are rearranged in order by the zigzag
order rule which is shown in Fig. 2 as follows:
The final step in JPEG image compression is to com-
press the DCT coefficients of each of the 8 × 8 pixel blocks
already quantized and zigzag ordered using a lossless algo-
rithm, which is a variant of Huffman encoding [47]. Huffman
encoding is a special method used to encode symbols such as
DCT coefficients as variable length codes assigned accord-
ing to statistical probability. In the method, frequently used
symbols are encoded in codes with only a few bits, while
rarely used symbols are represented by symbols that take up
a few bits. A JPEG file contains up to four Huffman tables
in which codes of variable length are assigned from 1 to 16
bits, where code values are represented by 8-bit bytes. Creat-
ing such a table usually involves calculating how often each
symbol (DCT password) appears in the image and assign-

123
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image…
ing the correct bit string. While most of the JPEG encoders
only use JPEG Huffman tables, some others may require
the optimization of these tables, meaning that an optimal
binary tree is to be constructed in order to create a more effi-
cient Huffman table. The compression efficiency depends
on the quantization rate of the DCT, where the number of
zeros plays an important role. As the quantization process
produces more zeros, Huffman encoding groups more zeros
into smaller passwords, saving more memory and achiev-
ing higher compression ratios. By decompressing the JPEG
image, the reconstructed image is obtained by performing
a decoder, inverse zigzag order, inverse quantization, and
inverse discrete cosine transform, respectively. Since some
coefficients are set to zero and the actual pixel values are
quantized, the reconstructed image becomes more blurred
depending on the quality level of the quantization table used
in the quantization process.
2.2 Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform
(LDR-DCT)
In theory, the DCT is a lossless orthogonal transformation
method, meaning that it outputs the same value as the input
after inverse transformation. However, this is not practically
possible with today’s technology, as processors have limited
capacity where the maximum a value can take in a 64-bit
register is 264 −1 (20 digit number). Because DCT uses float-
ing values higher than this precision, rounding errors occur
and certain information is lost after inverse transformation.
Therefore, the dynamic range of the DCT coefficients should
be reduced so that fewer precision digits are employed in the
DCT calculations, thereby the round-off error and loss of
information are minimized. The dynamic range (DR) of a
given input . is usually defined as the ratio between the
largest and smallest values that a given quantity can take,
and is measured mostly as a base-ten (decibel) logarithmic
value can be defined in Eq. 4 as follows:
max()
DR()  20 × log10
min()
1851
As it is well-known from the basic concept of informa-
tion theory, the dynamic range of any type of data can be
reduced after successive downscaling and upscaling, which
leads to a decrease in the amount of physical size in the
memory. Inspired by this concept, in this study, the conven-
tional DCT equations are improved in both the forward and
inverse transform parts. Since it is not possible to retain the
original data lossless by firstly scaling to a lower resolu-
tion, and latterly scaling to a higher resolution successively,
there occurs some loss of information in the data, thereby
preserving lower quality and physical memory size. Like-
wise, in the proposed LDR-DCT method, the dynamic range
is reduced due to the predominance of the high-frequency
coefficients in the forward transform (downscaling) and
the dominance over the low-frequency coefficients in the
inverse transform (upscaling). After successive downscaling
and upscaling, the proposed method reduces the dynamic
range of the DCT coefficients and provides a low dynamic
range DCT (LDR-DCT) that minimizes the round-off error
between the forward and inverse transforms. This is the orig-
inal version of the LDR-DCT that is valid in the absence
of quantization is applied to the DCT coefficients. In the
existence of quantization is applied to the DCT coefficients,
since the quantization also reduces the dynamic range of the
DCT coefficients by itself, the predominant high-frequency
DCT coefficients are quantized much more than the low-
frequency DCT coefficients and the information loss in the
high-frequency DCT coefficients becomes higher than the
information loss in the low-frequency DCT coefficients. This
makes the low-frequency DCT coefficients predominant to
the high-frequency DCT coefficients and latterly leads to the
increment in the dynamic range of DCT coefficients. There-
fore, in the existence of quantization, the reverse operation
is to be applied in order to reduce the dynamic range of the
DCT coefficients.
T proposed LDR-DCT (Low Dynamic Range Discrete
Cosine Transform) is an orthonormal transform with new
contributions, such that the existing conventional DCT equa-
tions are improved in both forward and inverse transforma-
(4)
tions where 1D Forward DCT is y  C x. and 1D Inverse
DCT is x  C −1 y defined in Eqs. 5 and 6, respectively,
within the special condition defined in Eq. 7 as follows:
123
1852
LDR-DCT in the existence of quantization (Reverse Version)
 −1
N −1 2 
N
(2n + 1)kπ
y(k)  α(k) x(n) cos
N +k−1 N 2N
n0
k 0, 1, . . . N − 1
 −1
2 
N
N +k−1 (2n + 1)kπ
x(n)  α(k)y(k) cos ; k0
N N −1 2N
k0
n 0, 1, . . . N − 1
α(0)  √1 ; α(k)  1; k  0.
2 2
According to Eqs. 5, 6, and 7, the proposed LDR-DCT
method reduces the dynamic range of DCT coefficients by
weighting them with respect to the frequency level and pro-
vides a particular DCT with a lower dynamic range. The
fundamental idea underneath the proposed approach is that
DCT coefficients take place from low-frequency to high fre-
quency in ascending indexing order if the input vector is
assumed as one-dimensional. In the case of two dimensions,
DCT coefficients are indexed from low frequency to high
frequency in the direction from the top-left corner to the
bottom-right corner of the input matrix. The proposed DCT
approach differs from the conventional DCT approach in
terms of the evaluation of DCT coefficients. The conven-
tional DCT approach performs an equal evaluation of DCT
coefficients whereas the proposed DCT approach employs a
weighted evaluation of DCT coefficients in which weightings
are done according to the index number of the DCT coeffi-
cients. Since the DCT coefficients with lower index values are
more likely to be low-frequency components and the DCT
coefficients with higher index values are more likely to be
high-frequency components of the input data, the DCT coef-
ficients are weighted with respect to the probability of being a
high-frequency component in the forward transformation and
the probability of being a low-frequency component in the
inverse transformation which means DCT coefficients with
lower index values are less weighted than the DCT coef-
ficients with higher index values in one-dimensional DCT
calculations in forward transformation and the reverse in the
inverse transformation. Since the low-frequency DCT coef-
ficients keep the primary data characteristics largely visible
to the human eye, and the high-frequency DCT coefficients
make the secondary data characteristics largely invisible to
the human eye, there is a dramatic loss of information in
the forward DCT transform, almost not compensable in the
inverse DCT transform. This operation refers to the down-
scaling in the physical meaning. In order to perform the
maximum amount of compensation in the inverse DCT trans-
123
I. F. Ince et al.
LDR-DCT in the absence of quantization (Original Version)
 N −1
N +k−1 2  (2n + 1)kπ
y(k)  α(k) x(n) cos
N −1 N 2N (5)
; n0
k 0, 1, . . . N − 1
 N −1
2  N −1 (2n + 1)kπ
x(n)  α(k)y(k) cos
N N +k−1 2N (6)
n  0, 1, . . . N − 1
α(0)  √1 ; α(k)  1; k  0. (7)
form, the low-frequency DCT coefficients become dominant,
and this operation refers to the upscaling. Since perfect com-
pensation is not possible after successive downscaling and
upscaling, the proposed method reduces the dynamic range
of the DCT coefficients and provides a low dynamic range
DCT (LDR-DCT) that minimizes round-off error. Since suc-
cessive downscaling (forward transform) and the upscaling
(inverse transform) operations are performed at the weighted
frequency level of the DCT coefficients linearly indexed in
the 1D data vector, there is a gradual rather than abrupt change
between these two states, resulting in minimal loss of quality.
In order to reveal the excellence of the proposed LDR-
DCT method on the conventional DCT method, a sample
8 × 8 image sub-block given in Table 2 is employed as the
input data for both methods to evaluate their outputs after the
inverse transform with respect to the amount of information
loss from the original input data using three different metrics:
the mean squared error (MSE) that is defined in Eq. 8 in
Sect. 3, the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) that is defined
in Eq. 9 in Sect. 3 and the dynamic range (DR) that is defined
in Eq. 4 in this section.
Firstly, the 1D DCT is applied with both methods in the
absence and existence of quantization by using the first row
of the sample 2D input data given in Table 2 as the input. In
the existence of quantization, the quantization factor of 21 is
employed. Later, the outputs are observed on the 2D DCT in
the existence of quantization by using the entire data given in
Table 2 as the input and the standard IrfanView quantization
table with the quality of 50 given in Table 1 as the quantization
factors. At each step, outputs are compared with respect to
the original input data given in Table 2 as follows:
In order to observe the change in the dynamic range of
the outputs generated from the conventional DCT and the
proposed LDR-DCT methods, firstly, the dynamic range of
the 1D input vector (the first row of the data in Table 2) for
the 1D evaluation of the conventional DCT and the proposed
LDR-DCT methods, and the dynamic range of the 2D input
matrix (the entire data in Table 2) for the 2D evaluation of
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image… 1853

Table 2 Sample 8 × 8 Image

Sub-block 97 97 95 94 145 199 143 91
98 98 98 95 144 202 146 91
98 99 98 97 149 201 142 90
96 95 96 94 141 198 139 87
97 99 99 98 140 194 139 98
138 143 146 148 153 165 127 115
111 105 104 97 137 157 95 88
95 95 92 85 148 197 114 86

Table 3 Dynamic range (DR)

values of the input data Input Dynamic range (DR)
according to Table 2
1D Vector (The First Row) 6.796233681772260
2D Matrix (The Entire Table) 7.518648874646621

Table 4 Outputs of the conventional 1D DCT and the proposed 1D LDR-DCT in the absence of quantization
Input Vector 1D Forward DCT 1D Inverse DCT 1D Forward LDR-DCT 1D Inverse LDR-DCT

97 339.76480836013616 97.0 339.76480836013616 97.00000000000004

97 − 50.04590057017941 97.00000000000003 − 57.19531493734785 97.00000000000001
95 − 33.8913807528953 95.0000000000001 − 43.57463239657966 95.0000000000001
94 72.14936176624644 93.99999999999987 103.07051680892351 93.99999999999987
145 − 37.830212793480236 145.0000000000004 − 59.447477246897506 145.00000000000034
199 − 7.122399710220563 198.99999999999974 − 12.209828074663804 198.99999999999972
143 15.186319852494755 143.00000000000014 28.203165440347412 143.0000000000001
91 − 4.863008863950302 90.99999999999996 − 9.726017727900604 90.99999999999991
MSE 3.410403465451478E− 26 3.069615554396001E− 26
PSNR 302.8027459992409 303.25996374009407
DR 6.796233681772254 6.796233681772257

the conventional DCT and the proposed LDR-DCT methods
are calculated and listed in Table 3 as follows:
Secondly, the outputs of the conventional 1D DCT method
and the proposed 1D LDR-DCT method are listed in Table
4 (in the absence of quantization) and Table 5 (in the exis-
tence of quantization), respectively. In this case, the first row
of Table 2 is employed as the 1D input vector. In Table 4,
the outputs of the conventional 1D DCT and the proposed
1D LDR-DCT in the absence of quantization are listed as
follows:
According to Table 4, in the absence of quantization,
it is observed that the dynamic range decreases after
the inverse 1D DCT transform in both the conventional
1D DCT (6.796233681772260 to 6.796233681772254)
and the proposed 1D LDR-DCT (6.796233681772260 to
6.796233681772257) methods. However, the proposed 1D
LDR-DCT method keeps the dynamic range slightly higher
than the conventional 1D DCT method which means that the
perceivable information quality of the proposed 1D LDR-
DCT method’s output is quite higher than it is in the output
of the conventional 1D DCT method. Additionally, the MSE
is much lower (3.069615554396001E-26) and as a result,
the PSNR is much higher (303.25996374009407) in the pro-
posed 1D LDR-DCT method which means that the amount
of information loss due to the round-off error in the preci-
sion is quite lower than it is in the conventional 1D DCT
method. Therefore, in the absence of quantization, the pro-
posed 1D LDR-DCT method does not make a change in the
compression ratio, but rather, it increases the quality of the
output obtained after the inverse transform which means that
the conventional 1D DCT method should be replaced by the
proposed 1D LDR-DCT method in such particular fields that
the compression is not in demand.
In the existence of quantization, the DCT coefficients
obtained after the forward transform are quantized by a given
quantization factor and rounded up to the nearest integer
value. This operation is called quantization. On the other
hand, as the inverse operation, the quantized DCT coeffi-
cients which are already rounded up to the nearest integer
values are employed as the input for the inverse DCT trans-
form. However, after the inverse transform, there exists an
energy reduction in the reconstructed data since the fre-

123
1854 I. F. Ince et al.

Table 5 Outputs of the conventional 1D DCT and the proposed 1D LDR-DCT in the existence of quantization
Input Vector 1D Forward DCT 1D Inverse DCT 1D Forward LDR-DCT 1D Inverse LDR-DCT

97 339.76480836013616 94 339.76480836013616 96
97 − 50.04590057017941 92 − 43.79016299890698 99
95 − 33.8913807528953 109 − 26.35996280780744 93
94 72.14936176624644 98 50.5045532363725 98
145 − 37.830212793480236 141 − 24.07377177766924 141
199 − 7.122399710220563 194 − 4.154733164295331 178
143 15.186319852494755 140 8.177249151343332 151
91 − 4.863008863950302 83 − 2.431504431975151 93
MSE 45.0 68.75
PSNR 31.598678470925666 29.758076583656102
DR 7.374472751083044 5.638741075099177

quencies are lowered by a given quantization factor in the
quantization process. In order to magnify the lowered data,
the values obtained after the inverse transform are to be mul-
tiplied with the same quantization factor already employed
in the quantization process. Since the result of the multiplica-
tion operations are the floating decimal number, a rounding
up operation is done and the reconstructed data is obtained
as the integer values. This operation is called inverse quanti-
zation.
In Table 5, a quantization factor of 21 is employed in
the quantization and the inverse quantization processes, and
the outputs of the conventional 1D DCT and the proposed
1D LDR-DCT in the existence of quantization are listed as
follows:
According to Table 5, in the existence of quan-
tization when the quantization factors are employed
instead of the quantization tables, it is observed that
the dynamic range in the conventional 1D DCT method
increases dramatically after the inverse 1D DCT trans-
form (6.796233681772260–7.374472751083044) while it
dramatically decreases in the proposed 1D LDR-DCT
method (6.796233681772260–5.638741075099177) which
means that the proposed 1D LDR-DCT method is successful
in reducing the dynamic range as it does in the absence of
quantization. Since the dynamic range is mostly related to the
perceivable information quality of the data, the data quality
obtained by the proposed 1D LDR-DCT method’s output is
much lower than it is in the output of the conventional 1D
DCT method. Moreover, the MSE is much higher (68.75) and
as a result, the PSNR is much lower (29.758076583656102)
in the proposed 1D LDR-DCT method which means that the
amount of information loss is much higher than it is in the
conventional 1D DCT method. However, in this case, the rea-
son underneath this reduction in the loss of information is not
directly related to the minimization in the round-off error in
the precision, but rather, it is indirectly related to the amount
of quantization. Since the number of digits in the precision
is minimized by the proposed 1D LDR-DCT, the amount of
quantization becomes higher than it is in the conventional 1D
DCT method which yields a higher amount of compression
with less amount of quality in the data obtained after inverse
transform. In this regard, the correlation rate between the
compression ratio and the quality is to be observed so that
it can be concluded whether the proposed 1D LDR-DCT
method is useful or not.
Lastly, in order to observe the outputs of both methods
in two dimensions, the outputs of the conventional 2D DCT
method and the proposed 2D LDR-DCT method are listed
in Table 6 within all the steps of the quantization and the
inverse quantization processes. In this case, the entire data in
Table 2 is employed as the 2D input matrix and it is already
known that the dynamic range of this 2D input matrix is
7.518648874646621 as it is already listed in Table 3, pre-
viously. Since the forward 2D DCT can be constructed by
employing a successive 1D forward DCT operation horizon-
tally and vertically one to another, and the inverse 2D DCT
can be constructed by employing a successive 1D inverse
DCT operation in the reverse order of the forward transform
as vertically and horizontally one to another, the quantiza-
tion is performed after the forward 2D DCT transform and
the inverse quantization is performed after the inverse 2D
DCT transform. An illustration of the 2D DCT construction
by using the forward 1D DCT transform and the inverse 1D
DCT transform for the conventional 2D DCT method and the
forward 1D LDR-DCT transform and the inverse 1D LDR-
DCT transform for the proposed 2D LDR-DCT method is
given in Table 6 including all the quantization and the inverse
quantization steps in the process as follows:
In Table 6, instead of employing a given quantization fac-
tor, the standard IrfanView quantization table with the quality
level of 50 which is given in Table 1 is employed in the
quantization and the inverse quantization processes. In the

123
 Table 6 An illustration of the 2D DCT construction using the forward and the inverse 1D DCT transforms

1D DCT (Horizontal) 1D LDR-DCT (Horizontal)

339.76 − 50.05 − 33.89 72.15 − 37.83 − 7.12 15.19 − 4.86 339.76 − 43.79 − 26.36 50.50 − 24.07 − 4.15 8.18 − 2.43
343.65 − 50.19 − 33.81 72.20 − 41.01 − 5.03 16.30 − 5.19 343.65 − 43.92 − 26.30 50.54 − 26.10 − 2.94 8.78 − 2.60
344.36 − 47.64 − 37.89 72.48 − 37.48 − 8.36 15.69 − 4.60 344.36 − 41.68 − 29.47 50.73 − 23.85 − 4.87 8.45 − 2.30
334.46 − 46.80 − 35.50 71.11 − 38.89 − 5.41 17.77 − 6.26 334.46 − 40.95 − 27.61 49.78 − 24.75 − 3.16 9.57 − 3.13
340.83 − 47.61 − 30.39 61.74 − 34.65 − 7.39 17.18 − 7.88 340.83 − 41.66 − 23.63 43.22 − 22.05 − 4.31 9.25 − 3.94
401.28 12.17 − 30.02 18.71 − 9.55 − 5.39 9.76 − 7.65 401.28 10.64 − 23.35 13.10 − 6.07 − 3.14 5.25 − 3.82
316.08 − 3.19 − 27.84 45.69 − 9.90 − 20.31 21.48 − 2.95 316.08 − 2.79 − 21.65 31.98 − 6.30 − 11.85 11.57 − 1.48
322.44 − 38.80 − 39.33 74.59 − 29.70 − 24.62 27.01 − 6.60 322.44 − 33.95 − 30.59 52.21 − 18.90 − 14.36 14.54 − 3.30
1D DCT (Vertical) 1D LDR-DCT (Vertical)

969.75 − 96.20 − 94.99 172.77 − 84.50 − 29.57 49.63 − 16.26 969.75 − 84.18 − 73.88 120.94 − 53.77 − 17.25 26.72 − 8.13
3.53 − 41.59 − 2.50 25.68 − 25.09 14.30 − 6.24 0.93 3.09 − 31.84 − 1.70 15.73 − 13.97 7.30 − 2.94 0.41
− 22.48 − 0.86 − 2.19 11.53 2.03 − 10.97 5.71 2.02 − 17.49 − 0.58 − 1.32 6.27 1.01 − 4.98 2.39 0.79
34.19 29.01 8.12 − 32.57 14.53 6.69 − 7.48 − 1.01 23.94 17.77 4.42 − 15.96 6.47 2.73 − 2.82 − 0.35
− 24.00 − 33.37 − 3.38 24.93 − 15.25 − 1.93 4.92 − 1.85 − 15.27 − 18.58 − 1.67 11.10 − 6.18 − 0.72 1.68 − 0.59
− 16.91 14.43 1.55 − 4.54 8.51 − 2.10 0.08 2.56 − 9.86 7.36 0.70 − 1.85 3.16 − 0.72 0.03 0.75
37.18 9.34 − 4.29 − 9.68 2.95 1.74 − 4.31 − 1.38 20.02 4.40 − 1.80 − 3.65 1.01 0.55 − 1.25 − 0.37
− 26.51 − 13.30 1.42 10.16 − 1.68 − 4.74 2.47 1.26 − 13.26 − 5.82 0.55 3.55 − 0.54 − 1.38 0.66 0.32
Quantization with Quantization Table (Quality Quantization with Quantization Table (Quality
Level: 50) Level: 50)

61 −9 −9 11 −4 −1 1 0 61 −8 −7 8 −2 0 1 0
0 −3 0 1 −1 0 0 0 0 −3 0 1 −1 0 0 0
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image…

−2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 −1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 −1 0 0 0 0
−1 −2 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1 −1 0 0 0 0 0 0
−1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1D Inverse DCT (Vertical) 1D Inverse LDR-DCT (Vertical)

21.03 − 4.53 − 3.18 3.96 − 1.9 − 0.35 0.35 0.0 21.61 − 4.47 − 2.47 2.79 − 1.27 0.0 0.35 0.0
21.37 − 3.92 − 3.18 4.4 − 1.83 − 0.35 0.35 0.0 21.6 − 3.84 − 2.47 3.44 − 1.18 0.0 0.35 0.0
21.69 − 4.29 − 3.18 4.66 − 1.69 − 0.35 0.35 0.0 20.97 − 3.93 − 2.47 3.85 − 1.02 0.0 0.35 0.0
1855

123
 Table 6 continued
1856

1D Inverse DCT (Vertical) 1D Inverse LDR-DCT (Vertical)

123
20.97 − 4.74 − 3.18 4.26 − 1.51 − 0.35 0.35 0.0 20.81 − 4.12 − 2.47 3.34 − 0.82 0.0 0.35 0.0
22.92 − 3.04 − 3.18 3.51 − 1.32 − 0.35 0.35 0.0 22.4 − 2.65 − 2.47 2.32 − 0.6 0.0 0.35 0.0
23.84 − 0.66 − 3.18 3.12 − 1.14 − 0.35 0.35 0.0 23.77 − 0.62 − 2.47 1.81 − 0.39 0.0 0.35 0.0
20.78 − 1.03 − 3.18 3.38 − 1.0 − 0.35 0.35 0.0 22.16 − 0.71 − 2.47 2.21 − 0.23 0.0 0.35 0.0
19.93 − 3.25 − 3.18 3.81 − 0.92 − 0.35 0.35 0.0 19.23 − 2.3 − 2.47 2.86 − 0.15 0.0 0.35 0.0
1D Inverse DCT (Horizontal) 1D Inverse LDR-DCT (Horizontal)

4.69 5.24 5.65 6.48 9.86 12.12 9.43 6.03 4.74 4.92 5.88 6.67 9.89 12.63 9.94 6.44
5.32 5.55 5.69 6.56 10.06 12.26 9.32 5.7 5.53 5.08 5.57 6.53 10.12 12.84 9.68 5.74
5.4 5.43 5.53 6.61 10.33 12.55 9.56 5.93 5.58 4.67 4.95 6.22 10.15 12.84 9.47 5.42
4.83 4.97 5.28 6.49 10.08 12.16 9.39 6.13 5.23 4.48 5.08 6.46 10.03 12.37 9.32 5.88
6.11 6.36 6.74 7.62 10.46 11.94 9.23 6.36 6.14 5.75 6.69 7.72 10.15 11.63 8.92 6.35
7.5 7.65 7.86 8.35 10.51 11.35 8.47 5.75 7.57 7.16 8.07 8.74 10.32 11.0 8.25 6.12
6.39 6.34 6.5 7.21 9.58 10.45 7.51 4.79 7.28 6.4 7.1 8.09 10.01 10.65 7.69 5.44
5.21 5.05 5.34 6.6 9.64 10.95 8.15 5.42 5.79 4.48 5.06 6.67 9.45 10.53 7.46 4.96
Inverse Quantization with Quantization Table’s [Row: Inverse Quantization with Quantization Table’s [Row:
0, Column: 0] (Quality Level: 50) 0, Column: 0] (Quality Level: 50)

75 84 90 104 158 194 151 97 76 79 94 107 158 202 159 103

85 89 91 105 161 196 149 91 88 81 89 104 162 205 155 92
86 87 88 106 165 201 153 95 89 75 79 100 162 205 152 87
77 79 84 104 161 195 150 98 84 72 81 103 160 198 149 94
98 102 108 122 167 191 148 102 98 92 107 123 162 186 143 102
120 122 126 134 168 182 135 92 121 115 129 140 165 176 132 98
102 101 104 115 153 167 120 77 116 102 114 129 160 170 123 87
83 81 85 106 154 175 130 87 93 72 81 107 151 168 119 79
I. F. Ince et al.
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image…
Table 7 Outputs of the conventional 2D DCT and the Proposed 2D
LDR-DCT methods according to Table 6
Metrics Conventional 2D DCT Proposed 2D LDR-DCT
MSE 176.375 208.0625
PSNR 25.66643334105506 24.94886548367168
DR 8.562695880575777 9.088427292489717
quantization process, the 2D DCT coefficients are divided
by the values in the quantization table and latterly rounded
up to an integer. In this step, the dynamic range of the input
is reduced. Reversely in the inverse quantization step, the
dynamic range is increased in which the pixel values in low
dynamic range are multiplied with the value of the cell at the
top-left corner of the quantization table and latterly rounded
up to an integer since the lowest frequency component (DC
coefficient) among all the 2D DCT coefficients is the coef-
ficient at the top-left corner of the 8 × 8 image sub-block.
The purpose of this illustration is actually to show how the
proposed 2D LDR-DCT generates a much higher number
of zeros in the quantization step compared to the conven-
tional 2D DCT. If the quantization process generates more
zeros, Huffman coding will group larger amounts of zeros
in smaller codewords, so more storage memory is saved and
more compression ratio is achieved. Additionally, in order
to observe the outputs of the conventional 2D DCT method
and the proposed 2D LDR-DCT method, the outputs are cal-
culated according to the same performance metrics that are
already employed previously in the evaluation of the conven-
tional 1D DCT and the proposed 1D LDR-DCT methods as
listed in Tables 4 and 5. Similarly, the outputs of the con-
ventional 2D DCT and the proposed 2D LDR-DCT methods
according to Table 6 are listed in Table 7 as follows:
According to Table 7, the mean squared error (MSE) val-
ues and consequently the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR)
values are computed by comparing the 2D output data of the
conventional 2D DCT and the proposed 2D LDR-DCT meth-
ods with the original 2D input data already listed in Table 2. In
addition, the dynamic range (DR) values are calculated with
respect to the 2D output data of the conventional 2D DCT
and the proposed 2D LDR-DCT methods, which are already
obtained in the last step in Table 6. The results indicate
that in the presence of quantization when quantization tables
are employed instead of quantization factors, it is observed
that the dynamic range in the conventional 2D DCT method
increases dramatically after the inverse 2D DCT transfor-
mation (7.518648874646621 to 8.562695880575777), while
in the proposed 2D LDR-DCT method there is a much
higher increase in the dynamic range (7.518648874646621
to 9.0884272929) which means that the proposed 2D LDR-
DCT method is more successful in increasing the dynamic
range compared to the conventional 2D DCT method. On
1857
the other hand, as it is previously observed in Table 5, the
dynamic range obtained with 1D LDR-DCT decreases dra-
matically when the quantization factors are employed instead
of quantization tables. However, in this case, when the quan-
tization tables are employed, it is observed that in both
methods, there exists an increment in the dynamic range since
the quantization tables are designed to get the maximum per-
ceivable information quality in JPEG compression. As the
dynamic range is mainly related to the perceived information
quality of the data, the quality of the data obtained with the
proposed 2D LDR-DCT method is much higher than with
the conventional 2D DCT method. Additionally, the MSE
is slightly higher (208.0625) and hence the PSNR is much
lower (24.94886548367168) in the proposed 2D LDR-DCT
method, which means that the amount of information loss is
much higher than in the conventional 2D DCT method. How-
ever, in this case, the reason for this reduction in information
loss is not directly related to minimizing the rounding error
in precision, but rather is indirectly related to the amount of
quantization. Since the number of digits in precision is min-
imized by the proposed 2D LDR-DCT method, the amount
of quantization becomes higher than in the conventional 2D
DCT method, which provides more compression with less
data quality obtained after inverting the transform. There-
fore, the correlation coefficient between the increment rate
in the compression and the rate of reduction in the quality
should be observed so that it can be concluded whether the
proposed 2D LDR-DCT method is useful or not. For exam-
ple, if the increment rate in the compression is dramatically
higher than the rate of reduction in the quality, it can be
concluded that the proposed 2D LDR-DCT method is better
than the conventional 2D DCT method in terms of compres-
sion performance. Therefore, in this study, the compression
performance of both methods is analyzed through the exper-
iments in Sect. 3, and the final conclusion is given in Sect. 4,
respectively.
3 Experimental results
A deliberate attempt is made through several experiments to
test the proposed hypothesis on the JPEG image compres-
sion that a particular low dynamic range DCT minimizes
the rounding error and therefore produces a JPEG out-
put with higher compression performance. In this regard, a
robust experimental design is utilized in order to test and
validate the correlation between and among experimental
variables. In this context, firstly, the experimental dataset and
the implementation framework are introduced. Secondly, the
performance metrics are defined. Finally, the experimental
outputs are listed, and the results obtained are analyzed at
the end.
123
1858 I. F. Ince et al.

Table 8 The illustration of the employed dataset for the experiments

kodim04.png kodim09.png kodim10.png kodim17.png kodim18.png kodim19.png

(512 × 768) (512 × 768) (512 × 768) (512 × 768) (512 × 768) (512 × 768)

kodim01.png kodim02.png kodim03.png kodim05.png kodim06.png kodim07.png

(768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512)

kodim08.png kodim11.png kodim12.png kodim13.png kodim14.png kodim15.png

(768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512)

kodim16.png kodim20.png kodim21.png kodim22.png kodim23.png kodim24.png

(768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512) (768 × 512)

3.1 Dataset and implementation
All the experiments are performed using a regular computer
equipped with an Intel Core i7-6700HQ processor with a fre-
quency of 2.60 GHz and 16 GB of RAM. The experiments
are conducted on the grayscale and RGB images separately
by using the publicly available KODAK image dataset [42]
in which the images are in RGB color space with PNG for-
mat. Since the block size parameter is set to 8 × 8 by default
in JPEG image compression, through the dataset, out of 25
PNG images, only 24 of them with a resolution of 768 × 512
(18 out of 24) and 512 × 768 (6 out of 24) are employed as
the experimental dataset in which the widths and heights of
the images are all multiple of 8. Therefore, the 25th image
is removed from the experimental dataset in order not to
carry out an approximation, but rather, to get the most precise
results on the excessive borders of the images. The illustra-
tion of the employed dataset for the experiments is given in
Table 8 as follows:
On the other hand, JPEG image compression using both
the conventional DCT and the proposed LDR-DCT methods
is implemented in the Processing platform using the Java
programming language. In order to observe the real perfor-
mance of both the conventional DCT and the proposed DCT
methods on the JPEG image compression, firstly, the origi-
nal input images in PNG format are saved as JPEG by using
the standard JPEG encoding module in Java to be used as
the reference images for comparing them with the generated
JPEG images in terms of employed performance metrics.
Later, the original input images in PNG format are forwardly
and inversely quantized by using the conventional DCT and
the proposed DCT methods separately and latterly saved as
JPEG again by using the standard JPEG encoding module
in Java. Additionally, the forward and inverse quantization
is performed by using 7 different quantization factors (1 to
121) and also the standard IrfanView quantization tables
with 7 different quality levels (40 to 100). Apart from the
generation of the compressed JPEG images using the Java
programming language in the Processing platform, 6 dif-
ferent performance metrics: the mean squared error (MSE),
the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), the quantization rate
(QR), the compression ratio (CR), the bits per pixel (BPP)
and the compression performance (CP) are also calculated
and printed on the separate text files to be analyzed as the pri-
mary experimental outputs. The processing durations taken
including the entire process in the Processing platform are
listed in Table 9 as follows:
Finally, the generated JPEG images are subjected to per-
formance analysis in the MATLAB R2020b environment,
measuring the image quality in terms of the structural sim-

123
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image… 1859

Table 9 The processing

durations taken including the Quantization methods Quantization factors Quantization tables
entire process in the processing DCT Methods Conventional DCT Proposed Conventional DCT Proposed
platform LDR-DCT LDR-DCT

Color Space Gray RGB Gray RGB Gray RGB Gray RGB

Total duration (ms) 134,686 386,401 145,365 396,308 145,601 396,683 149,021 404,710
Average duration (ms) 5611.9 16,100 6056 16,512 6066 16,528 6209 16,862
Average duration (s) 5.61 16.10 6.06 16.51 6.07 16.53 6.21 16.86

Table 10 Performance metrics employed in the experiments error between original and constructed images. In the exper-
Abbreviations Performance metrics Which is better iments, the actual values are taken from the pixels of the
original image, and the estimates are taken from the pixels of
MSE Mean Squared Error Lower the compressed JPEG image. Therefore, the lesser the MSE,
PSNR Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio Higher the better the quality of the compressed JPEG image. It is
SSIM Structural Similarity Index Higher formulated in Eq. 8 as follows:
QR Quantization Rate Higher

1  2
CR Compression Ratio Higher N
CP Compression Performance Higher MSE  Yi − Ŷi (8)
CII Contrast Improvement Index Slowly Higher
N
i1
AMBE Absolute Mean Brightness Error Same
BPP Bits Per Pixel Lower where N is the number of pixels in any given two images, Yi
is the pixel intensity values of the original image and Ŷi is
the pixel intensity values of the compressed JPEG image.
ilarity index (SSIM), the contrast improvement index (CII),
and the absolute average brightness error (AMBE), which
are defined as the secondary experimental outputs. 3.2.2 Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR)

Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) in decibel units is a well-

3.2 Performance metrics
A total of nine different performance metrics that are
employed in the experiments are introduced for evaluating
the performance of the conventional DCT and the proposed
LDR-DCT methods in JPEG image compression. The met-
rics are all bivariate, exploiting the differences or similarities
between the original and constructed JPEG images in terms
of the image data and physical size in the memory. The per-
formance metrics employed in the experiments are listed in
Table 10 as follows:
In the experiments, out of the nine different performance
metrics listed in Table 9, three of which: the peak signal-
to-noise ratio (PSNR), the compression ratio (CR), and the
compression performance (CP) are mainly to be observed as
the most significant ones, while the rest are to be considered
as supporting. The summarized definitions of these metrics
are given below in paragraphs as follows:
3.2.1 Mean squared error (MSE)
Mean Squared Error (MSE) is a well-known quality metric
defined as the average squared differences between the actual
and estimated values [48]. It indicates the cumulative squared
known quality metric that defines the measurement of the
peak error by using the value of MSE, and simply defined as
the ratio of the maximum possible value of a signal (power
of the signal) with respect to the power of the distortion noise
in the signal that is directly interrelated with the quality of
the signal [48]. Therefore, the higher the PSNR, the better
the quality of the compressed JPEG image. It is formulated
in Eq. 9 as follows:
2552
PSNR  10 log10 (9)
MSE
3.2.3 SSIM (structural similarity index)
SSIM (Structural Similarity Index) is a well-known qual-
ity metric that is a normalized similarity measure of any
two given images with the same resolution [49] where the
first image corresponds to the original image while the sec-
ond image corresponds to the compressed JPEG image in
the experiments. Therefore, the higher the SSIM, the bet-
ter the quality of the compressed JPEG image. The SSIM
index is computed by performing a window based com-
parison between any given two images where the measure

123
1860
between the two windows of x and y with the same resolu-
tion of N × N is formulated in Eq. 10 as follows:
  
2μx μ y + c1 2σx y + c2
SSIM(x, y)     (10)
μ2x + μ2y + c1 σx2 + σ y2 + c2
where μx is the mean value of x, μ y is the mean value of y,
σx2 is the variance of x, σ y2 is the variance of y, σx y is the
covariance of x and y, c1  (k1 L)2 and c2  (k2 L)2 are
the two variables that are employed in order to stabilize the
division operation with a weak denominator, L is the dynamic
range of the pixel intensity values (e.g., 2BPP(Bits Per Pixel) −
1), k1  0.01 and k2  0.03 by default.
3.2.4 Quantization rate (QR)
Quantization Rate (QR) is firstly defined particularly for this
study which is a normalized measure of the ratio between the
total number of zeros quantization process. Since the number
of zeros after quantization is high, the Huffman encoding
algorithm performs a better compression which consequently
increases the ratio of the JPEG compression. Therefore, the
higher the QR, the lesser the file size of the compressed JPEG
image. It is formulated in Eq. 11 as follows:
Total Number of Zeros After Quantization
QR 
Total Number of Pixels
(11)
3.2.5 Compression ratio (CR)
Compression Ratio (CR) is a well-known data compression
metric that is a measure of the relative reduction in the phys-
ical size of the reconstructed data generated by the particular
data compression algorithms [50]. It is simply defined as the
division of the uncompressed size by the compressed size.
Therefore, the higher the CR, the lesser the file size of the
compressed JPEG image. It is formulated in Eq. 12 as fol-
lows:
Uncompressed Size
CR  (12)
Compressed Size
3.2.6 Compression performance (CP)
Compression Performance (CP) is firstly defined particularly
for this study which is a hybrid metric composed of PSNR
as the quality metric and the CR as the compression met-
ric. By using the proposed metric, the correlation between
the PSNR and the CR is significantly observed and hence,
the real compression performance is measured in which the
higher compression amount is to be obtained while keeping
the image quality. Therefore, the higher the CP, the better the
123
I. F. Ince et al.
performance of the JPEG image compression. It is formu-
lated in Eq. 13 as follows:
CP  PSNR × CR (13)
3.2.7 Contrast improvement Index (CII)
Compression Performance (CP) is a well-known contrast
improvement ratio in which contrast is generally defined as
the difference in brightness or color that makes an image dis-
cernible. For this reason, in order to increase the contrast, it
is essentially required to increase the dynamic range which is
simply defined as the difference between the maximum and
minimum pixel intensity in an image. Though there exists
plenty of contrast estimation methods in the literature, the
Edge-based Contrast Measurement (EBCM) [48] which is
widely used as a robust contrast measurement metric is par-
ticularly preferred for this study to calculate the CII precisely
since while a little increase in the CII is considered as better,
the extreme increment or reduction in the CII is evaluated as
worse. In other words, the much lesser or the much higher the
CII, the worse the quality of the JPEG image compression.
The CII of the compressed JPEG image of Y with respect to
the original image of X is formulated in Eq. 14 as follows:
EBCM(Y )
CII  (14)
EBCM(X )
3.2.8 Absolute mean brightness error (AMBE)
Absolute Mean Brightness Error (AMBE) is a well-known
objective measure that is employed for the evaluation of the
compressed JPEG images with respect to the effectiveness
in maintaining the original brightness and is defined as the
absolute difference between the mean of the input image and
the mean of the output image in terms of pixel intensity [48].
A lower AMBE indicates whether the brightness is better
preserved. It is formulated in Eq. 15 as follows:
AMBE
 E (X ) − E (Y )
 
 
 1 N  M
1 
N 
M

 X (i, j) − Y (i, j)
N × M i j N×M
i j 
(15)
where N and M are the image widths and heights, respec-
tively. A lower value of AMBE denotes better brightness
preservation in the compressed JPEG images. A slightly
bigger AMBE is accepted as satisfactory. If AMBE is signif-
icantly high, it is considered undesirable.
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image…
3.2.9 Bits per pixel (BPP)
Bits Per Pixel (BPP) is a well-known compression metric that
represents the number of bits stored per pixel of an image
[50]. It is formulated in Eqs. 16 and 17 for grayscale and
RGB images, respectively, as follows:
8 the absence of quantization (quantization factor is 1), the CR
BPPGRAY 
CR
24
BPPRGB 
CR
The more bits there are, the more colors can be repre-
sented, but more memory is required to store or display the
image. Therefore, the higher the BPP, the higher the file size
of the compressed JPEG image.
3.3 Experimental outputs
A comprehensive experimental comparative study is carried
out using the publicly available KODAK image dataset to
show how the proposed method (LDR-DCT) overcomes the
existing conventional DCT method in terms of JPEG image
compression performance by applying different quantiza-
tion factors and standard IrfanView quantization tables [44]
with different quality levels. In addition, experiments are per-
formed separately for grayscale and RGB images. A total of
nine different performance metrics are employed in this pur-
pose, three of which: the PSNR, the CR, and the CP are used
as the major metrics in performance evaluation. Besides, the
outputs obtained with the remaining six metrics: the MSE,
the SSIM, the CII, the AMBE, the QR, and the BPP are also
evaluated as the supporting performance metrics. Accord-
ingly, the experimental outputs are listed in Tables 11 and
12, respectively, and also comparatively visualized in Fig. 3.
Finally, a deep analysis is given for each of these, one after
another successively.
The experimental outputs with varying quantization fac-
tors for grayscale and RGB images are listed in Table 11.
According to Table 11, there occurs an about 78% reduc-
tion in grayscale MSE and about 97% reduction in RGB
MSE when the quantization factor is 1 that does not include
any quantization in itself. Since the original version of the
proposed LDR-DCT method is applied in the absence of
quantization, the loss of information is minimized. In this
case, the PSNR value increases by about 16% in grayscale
images and about 33% in RGB images. Different from the
PSNR, the SSIM value increases very little (about 0.5%
increment in gray and about 0.3% increment in RGB) since
the SSIM metric outputs the perceivable similarity rather
than performing a pixel-to-pixel comparison. In terms of QR,
there exists about 53% reduction in grayscale images and
about 49% reduction in RGB images since the quantization
1861
factor of 1 does not perform any quantization operation and
the loss of information is minimized which means the abso-
lute magnitudes of the DCT coefficients are further from zero
in the proposed LDR-DCT method. Similarly, CR almost
does not change in the absence of quantization (about 0.7%
increment in gray and zero change in RGB). Since the pro-
posed LDR-DCT method reduces the dynamic range even in
(16)
increases albeit a small amount in grayscale images, but not
in RGB images. The reason underneath the different results
(17) in grayscale and RGB images is that RGB images (24-bits)
include much more information than the grayscale images
(8 bits) in which the compression is much more difficult to
accomplish compared to the grayscale images. Related to
the PSNR and CR, the CP which is defined as the multi-
plication of two also increases by about 17% in grayscale
images and about 33% in RGB images. In this case, the CP
increases mostly due to the high amount increment in the
PSNR though there exists lesser or zero increment in the CR.
In terms of contrast measurement, the CII metric increases by
about 0.2% in grayscale images and reduces by about 0.03%
in RGB images which are considered as very little changes.
Since the dynamic range and the contrast are directly propor-
tional to each other, and they do not change in the absence of
quantization, the compressed images make very little change
in the contrast. Indeed, this very little change in the contrast
occurs due to the round-off error in the precision digits and
also the rounding operation between the forward and inverse
transforms of the DCT. In terms of brightness preservation,
the AMBE metric increases by about 3% in grayscale images
and decreases by about 95% in RGB images. However, in
this case, the AMBE values of the conventional and the pro-
posed LDR-DCT method are very close to each other that the
difference occurs in the precision, therefore, the percentage
difference is not to be used, but rather, the difference with
subtraction operation is to be used instead. According to this
format, the AMBE increases by about 0.01 in gray images
and decreases by about 0.004 in RGB images which means
the brightness change is very little, and thereupon the bright-
ness is successfully preserved. As the final metric, the BPP
reduces by about 0.6% in grayscale images and about 0.08%
in RGB images which is very normal because the BPP is
inversely proportional with the CR. Hence, the reduction in
BPP yields an increment in the compression ratio that is the
CR metric previously analyzed in this paragraph.
On the other hand, according to Table 11, in the existence
of quantization when the quantization factor is between 21
and 121, there exists an increment in both grayscale MSE
and RGB MSE; however, the increment rate decreases by
the quantization factor is increased (about 46% increment
to about 8% increment in grayscale and about 120% incre-
ment to about 29% increment in RGB) since the reverse
version of the proposed LDR-DCT method is applied in this
123
1862 I. F. Ince et al.

Table 11 Experimental outputs with varying quantization factors for grayscale and RGB images
Metrics DCT methods GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY
1 21 41 61 81 101 121

MSE Proposed 1.279 111.474 172.080 220.167 270.614 308.021 320.792

Conventional 5.911 76.546 123.218 177.846 211.301 262.670 296.240
Difference (%) − 78.358 45.631 39.655 23.796 28.070 17.266 8.288
PSNR Proposed 47.339 28.146 26.272 25.200 24.401 23.711 23.623
Conventional 40.777 29.728 27.693 26.097 25.404 24.369 23.940
Difference (%) 16.095 − 5.323 − 5.132 − 3.437 − 3.948 − 2.699 − 1.323
SSIM Proposed 0.997 0.878 0.803 0.750 0.709 0.676 0.653
Conventional 0.993 0.925 0.856 0.801 0.757 0.719 0.690
Difference (%) 0.476 − 5.108 − 6.230 − 6.439 − 6.446 − 5.968 − 5.423
QR Proposed 0.074 0.887 0.938 0.956 0.965 0.971 0.974
Conventional 0.157 0.810 0.897 0.930 0.949 0.959 0.965
Difference (%) − 53.050 9.573 4.647 2.732 1.713 1.216 0.863
CR Proposed 0.998 1.525 2.227 2.827 3.432 3.891 4.355
Conventional 0.991 1.184 1.626 2.142 2.611 3.011 3.519
Difference (%) 0.673 28.828 36.955 31.984 31.434 29.228 23.763
CP Proposed 47.197 43.193 59.000 72.050 84.713 93.137 104.016
Conventional 40.424 35.247 45.330 56.370 67.130 74.170 85.384
Difference (%) 16.754 22.544 30.155 27.818 26.192 25.573 21.822
CII Proposed 1.003 0.992 0.989 1.004 1.018 1.105 0.988
Conventional 1.001 0.985 0.978 0.976 0.992 1.064 0.987
Difference (%) 0.196 0.757 1.112 2.829 2.587 3.837 0.104
AMBE Proposed 0.336 0.319 0.375 0.368 0.458 0.520 0.481
Conventional 0.326 0.304 0.338 0.380 0.412 0.500 0.569
Difference (%) 3.036 4.988 10.958 − 3.207 11.401 4.086 − 15.507
BPP Proposed 8.025 5.348 3.714 2.954 2.451 2.165 1.940
Conventional 8.071 6.843 5.078 3.905 3.231 2.811 2.418
Difference (%) − 0.568 − 21.847 − 26.856 − 24.341 − 24.142 − 22.991 − 19.797
Metrics DCT methods RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB
1 21 41 61 81 101 121

MSE Proposed 0.048 38.906 76.681 110.236 140.542 167.770 193.416

Conventional 1.586 17.719 44.681 71.881 98.439 124.973 150.274
Difference (%) − 96.975 119.573 71.619 53.360 42.771 34.245 28.709
PSNR Proposed 61.486 32.713 29.836 28.280 27.232 26.452 25.814
Conventional 46.294 35.888 32.008 29.978 28.640 27.613 26.811
Difference (%) 32.817 − 8.846 − 6.787 − 5.662 − 4.917 − 4.205 − 3.716
SSIM Proposed 1.000 0.948 0.909 0.878 0.851 0.827 0.807
Conventional 0.997 0.970 0.938 0.908 0.882 0.856 0.833
Difference (%) 0.290 − 2.285 − 3.031 − 3.343 − 3.464 − 3.339 − 3.173
QR Proposed 0.076 0.888 0.938 0.957 0.965 0.972 0.974
Conventional 0.149 0.810 0.897 0.932 0.950 0.960 0.966
Difference (%) − 48.883 9.676 4.598 2.637 1.535 1.303 0.863
CR Proposed 1.000 1.425 1.911 2.277 2.573 2.843 3.042
Conventional 1.000 1.156 1.464 1.794 2.074 2.330 2.564

123
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image… 1863

Table 11 continued
Metrics DCT methods RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB
1 21 41 61 81 101 121

Difference (%) 0.000 23.243 30.507 26.916 24.026 22.035 18.641

CP Proposed 61.482 46.823 57.291 64.644 70.235 75.339 78.544
Conventional 46.253 41.618 47.133 54.116 59.760 64.671 68.988
Difference (%) 32.926 12.507 21.553 19.455 17.527 16.496 13.851
CII Proposed 1.000 1.002 1.007 1.015 1.029 1.080 0.992
Conventional 1.000 0.997 0.992 0.992 1.002 1.046 0.989
Difference (%) − 0.027 0.485 1.532 2.308 2.734 3.214 0.274
AMBE Proposed 0.000 0.029 0.051 0.118 0.113 0.134 0.136
Conventional 0.004 0.023 0.043 0.113 0.106 0.133 0.139
Difference (%) − 94.499 28.508 17.882 4.370 6.502 0.756 − 1.829
BPP Proposed 24.001 16.981 12.687 10.658 9.452 8.563 8.012
Conventional 24.021 20.900 16.611 13.583 11.745 10.466 9.508
Difference (%) − 0.083 − 18.750 − 23.626 − 21.529 − 19.529 − 18.185 − 15.736

case, in which the loss of information is also minimized.
Reversely, the PSNR decreases by about 5% to about 1% in
grayscale images and about 9% to about 4% in RGB images
which indicates the same fact that the quality loss is decreas-
ing by the quantization factor is increased. Different from
the PSNR, even the quantization factors are increased, there
exists almost a constant reduction in the SSIM about 5% in
grayscale images and about 3% in RGB images since the
SSIM metric outputs the perceivable similarity rather than
performing a pixel-to-pixel comparison which outputs an
almost zero reduction in the quality. In terms of QR, there
exists a reduction by about 10% to 1% in grayscale and
RGB images, and it is observed that when the quantization
factors are increased from 21 to 121, the QR is decreasing
gradually since the loss of information is minimized by the
proposed LDR-DCT method. Additionally, the CR increases
in the existence of quantization, however, the increment rate
increases by about 29% to about 37% in grayscale images
and about 23% to about 31% in RGB images from the quan-
tization factor of 21 to 41, and later decreases gradually up
to the quantization factor of 121. Similarly, the CP which
is defined as the multiplication of two (PSNR and CR) also
increases by about 23% to about 30% in grayscale images
and about 13% to about 22% in RGB images from the quan-
tization factor of 21 to 41, and later decreases gradually up to
the quantization factor of 121. This shows that the maximum
amount of increase in the compression ratio and performance
is obtained with the first two quantization factors assuming
that the loss from the quality is also the maximum in this
range. Besides, it is observed that there occurs a lesser com-
pression ratio and performance in RGB images compared
to the grayscale images since RGB images include a higher
amount of information (24-bits) than the grayscale images (8-
bits) do which makes the compression harder in RGB images.
In terms of contrast, the CII increases in little amounts by
the quantization factor is increased and this is evaluated as
very normal since using the proposed LDR-DCT method,
the rate in the dynamic range reduction also decreases by the
quantization factor is increased. When it comes to brightness
preservation, the AMBE changes in between about 5% and
about -16% in grayscale images and in between about 29%
and about -2% in RGB images. This is related to the change
in the dynamic range of the images in which it is higher in
RGB images (in the case of quantization factors are used)
compared to the grayscale images. Furthermore, in this case,
the AMBE values of the conventional and the proposed LDR-
DCT method are very close to each other that the difference
occurs in the precision, therefore, the percentage difference
is not to be used, but rather, the difference with subtraction
operation is to be used instead. According to this format, the
AMBE changes by less than 0.1 in both grayscale and RGB
images which means the brightness change is very little, and
thereupon the brightness is successfully preserved. As the
final metric, the BPP decreases by the quantization factor
is increased since there occurs much more compression in
larger quantization factors which consequently reduces the
BPP that is inversely proportional with the compression ratio
(CR).
The experimental outputs with varying quantization tables
for grayscale and RGB images are listed in Table 12. Accord-
ing to Table 12, when using a quantization table with the
quality level of 100 that does not contain any quantization in
itself, approximately 77% reduction occurs in grayscale MSE
and approximately 97% in RGB MSE. Since the original ver-
sion of the proposed LDR-DCT method is applied without
quantization, information loss is minimized. In this case, the

123
1864 I. F. Ince et al.

Table 12 Experimental outputs with varying quantization tables for grayscale and RGB images
Metrics DCT methods GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY
40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MSE Proposed 297.818 303.357 298.165 340.298 210.182 306.962 1.392

Conventional 274.926 286.185 282.219 328.503 204.461 306.809 5.954
Difference (%) 8.326 6.000 5.650 3.591 2.798 0.050 − 76.617
PSNR Proposed 24.197 24.177 24.221 23.655 26.035 24.280 46.932
Conventional 24.624 24.474 24.449 23.815 26.210 24.277 40.742
Difference (%) − 1.734 − 1.213 − 0.933 − 0.672 − 0.668 0.015 15.193
SSIM Proposed 0.826 0.836 0.848 0.851 0.881 0.873 0.997
Conventional 0.852 0.860 0.869 0.870 0.892 0.876 0.992
Difference (%) − 3.096 − 2.742 − 2.357 − 2.232 − 1.194 − 0.233 0.432
QR Proposed 0.902 0.888 0.873 0.850 0.815 0.739 0.074
Conventional 0.870 0.851 0.830 0.799 0.751 0.644 0.157
Difference (%) 3.638 4.258 5.171 6.364 8.602 14.822 − 53.050
CR Proposed 1.623 1.485 1.436 1.312 1.325 1.176 0.998
Conventional 1.428 1.303 1.293 1.221 1.219 1.168 0.992
Difference (%) 13.689 13.943 11.090 7.404 8.715 0.678 0.588
CP Proposed 39.587 36.118 34.944 31.165 34.614 28.586 46.803
Conventional 35.368 32.021 31.691 29.158 32.015 28.382 40.398
Difference (%) 11.930 12.795 10.263 6.883 8.119 0.719 15.855
CII Proposed 0.973 0.976 0.977 0.961 0.998 0.977 0.999
Conventional 0.976 0.977 0.977 0.964 0.998 0.979 0.998
Difference (%) − 0.342 − 0.088 − 0.006 − 0.225 − 0.046 − 0.190 0.073
AMBE Proposed 0.689 0.698 0.702 0.867 0.502 0.807 0.336
Conventional 0.654 0.677 0.667 0.852 0.497 0.804 0.326
Difference (%) 5.365 3.138 5.186 1.733 0.997 0.382 2.912
BPP Proposed 4.995 5.439 5.616 6.132 6.050 6.826 8.023
Conventional 5.648 6.169 6.219 6.575 6.573 6.879 8.070
Difference (%) − 11.554 − 11.833 − 9.695 − 6.730 − 7.950 − 0.769 − 0.578
Metrics DCT methods RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB
40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MSE Proposed 95.756 92.856 86.933 90.458 74.431 87.689 0.048

Conventional 82.582 81.910 77.341 81.625 71.425 89.025 1.586
Difference (%) 15.952 13.363 12.402 10.820 4.208 − 1.501 − 96.975
PSNR Proposed 28.967 29.104 29.406 29.213 30.132 29.359 61.486
Conventional 29.600 29.646 29.911 29.657 30.328 29.297 46.294
Difference (%) − 2.140 − 1.827 − 1.688 − 1.498 − 0.647 0.211 32.817
SSIM Proposed 0.921 0.926 0.932 0.934 0.944 0.940 1.000
Conventional 0.934 0.937 0.942 0.943 0.948 0.940 0.997
Difference (%) − 1.358 − 1.138 − 0.986 − 0.906 − 0.433 0.080 0.290
QR Proposed 0.903 0.888 0.872 0.850 0.815 0.738 0.076
Conventional 0.872 0.851 0.830 0.798 0.749 0.639 0.149
Difference (%) 3.537 4.310 5.073 6.531 8.843 15.460 − 48.883
CR Proposed 1.557 1.468 1.410 1.312 1.310 1.190 1.000
Conventional 1.390 1.318 1.283 1.216 1.224 1.192 1.000
Difference (%) 12.054 11.413 9.938 7.879 6.978 − 0.105 0.000
CP Proposed 45.169 42.771 41.494 38.345 39.462 34.871 61.482

123
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image… 1865

Table 12 continued
Metrics DCT methods RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB
40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Conventional 41.213 39.084 38.346 36.041 37.051 34.815 46.253

Difference (%) 9.600 9.435 8.210 6.394 6.507 0.163 32.926
CII Proposed 1.003 1.002 1.001 0.993 1.015 1.003 1.000
Conventional 1.002 1.001 1.001 0.993 1.015 1.005 0.999
Difference (%) 0.093 0.058 0.030 − 0.039 0.064 − 0.124 0.077
AMBE Proposed 0.086 0.098 0.093 0.106 0.081 0.108 0.000
Conventional 0.085 0.098 0.093 0.106 0.081 0.107 0.004
Difference (%) 1.046 − 0.035 − 0.491 − 0.703 − 0.968 0.568 − 94.499
BPP Proposed 15.442 16.367 17.035 18.298 18.322 20.190 24.001
Conventional 17.282 18.227 18.735 19.750 19.628 20.183 24.021
Difference (%) − 10.649 − 10.207 − 9.070 − 7.350 − 6.651 0.031 − 0.083

PSNR value increases by about 15% for grayscale images and
about 33% for RGB images. Unlike PSNR, the SSIM value
increases slightly (about 0.4% increase in gray and approxi-
mately 0.3% increase in RGB) as the SSIM metric subtracts
perceptible similarity rather than pixel-to-pixel comparison.
In terms of QR, there is about 53% reduction in grayscale
images and about 49% in RGB images, since the quantiza-
tion table with the quality level of 100 does not perform any
quantization and information loss is minimized, which means
the absolute magnitudes of the DCT coefficients are further
from zero in the proposed LDR-DCT method. Similarly, CR
is virtually invariant in the absence of quantization (approxi-
mately 0.6% increase in gray and zero change in RGB). Since
the proposed LDR-DCT method reduces dynamic range even
in the absence of quantization (quantization table with the
quality level of 100), CR increases slightly in grayscale
images, but not in RGB images. The underlying reason for
the different results in grayscale and RGB images is that
RGB images (24-bit) contain much more information than
grayscale images (8-bit), where compression is much more
difficult than grayscale images. Regarding PSNR and CR,
CP, which is defined as the product of the two, increases
approximately 16% in grayscale images and approximately
33% in RGB images. In this case, although there is less or no
increase in CR, CP increases mostly due to a large increase
in PSNR. In terms of contrast measurement, the CII metric
increases by about 0.07% in grayscale images and by about
0.08% in RGB images, which are considered very minor
changes. Because dynamic range and contrast are directly
proportional to each other and do not change in the absence
of quantization, compressed images make little difference in
contrast. This very small change in the contrast occurs due
to the round-off error in the precision digits and the rounding
process between the forward and inverse transforms of the
DCT. In terms of maintaining brightness, the AMBE metric
increases by about 3% for grayscale images and decreases
by about 95% for RGB images. However, in this case, since
the AMBE values of the conventional DCT and the proposed
LDR-DCT method are very close to each other, the differ-
ence occurs in the precision, so the percentage difference is
not used, rather the difference is calculated with subtraction
instead. According to this format, AMBE increases by about
0.04 in gray images and decreases by about 0.004 in RGB
images. Since the brightness variation is minimal, the bright-
ness is successfully maintained. As a final measure, BPP is
reduced by about 0.6% for grayscale images and about 0.08%
for RGB images; this is very normal as the BPP is inversely
proportional to the CR. Therefore, the reduction in BPP pro-
vides an increase in the CR, which is analyzed earlier in this
paragraph.
On the other hand, according to Table 12, in the existence
of quantization when the quantization tables are used within
the quality between 40 and 90, there is an increase in both
grayscale MSE and RGB MSE, but the step decreases with
the quality of the quantization tables increasing (about 8%
increment to about 0.1% increment in grayscale and about
16% increment to about 1.5% reduction in RGB) since the
reverse version of the proposed LDR-DCT method is used
in this case, in which the loss of information is also min-
imized. However, when it comes to the quantization table
with the quality of 90, it is significant to note that there
is an information gain in the RGB images where MSE is
reduced by about 1.5% compared to the conventional DCT
method. Conversely, the rate of reduction in PSNR is reduced
(about 1.7% reduction to about 0.02% increment in grayscale
images and about 2% reduction to about 0.02% increment
in RGB images), indicating the same fact that the quality
loss decreases with the quality of the quantization tables
increasing. Different from PSNR, even the quality of the
quantization tables is increased, there is very little reduc-
tion in SSIM (about 3% reduction to about 0.2% reduction
in grayscale images and about 1% reduction to about 0.08%

123
1866 I. F. Ince et al.

increment in RGB images) because SSIM metric outputs the
noticeable similarity instead of performing a pixel-to-pixel
comparison that results in a slight reduction in quality. When
it comes to QR, there is an increase of about 4% to about
15% in both grayscale and RGB images, and it is observed
that when the quality of the quantization tables is increased
from 40 to 90, the QR gradually increases since the loss
of information is minimized with the proposed LDR-DCT
method. In addition, CR increases in the presence of quan-
tization, but the rate of increment decreases by about 14%
to about 1% in grayscale images and about 12% to about -
0.1% in RGB images as the quality of the quantization tables
increases from 40 to 90. Similarly, CP, which is defined as
the multiplication of two (PSNR and CR), increases in the
same range by about 12% to about 0.7% in grayscale images
and about 10% to about 0.2% in RGB images. This shows
that the maximum increase in the compression ratio and the
performance is achieved with the first two quantization tables
with the quality of 40 and 50, provided that the loss from the
quality is also the maximum in this range. In addition, it is
observed that a smaller compression ratio and performance
occurs in RGB images compared to the grayscale images,
since RGB images include a higher amount of information
(24-bit) than the grayscale images (8-bit) that makes the com-
pression more difficult in RGB images. In terms of contrast,
the CII changes are increased in small amounts by the quality
in the quantization tables, and this is evaluated as very normal
since the use of the proposed LDR-DCT method also reduces
the rate of change of dynamic range. When it comes to pre-
serving brightness, AMBE changes between about 5% and
about 0.4% in grayscale images and between about 1.05%
and about 0.6% in RGB images. This is related to the change

60 60
PSNR PSNR
55 55
Proposed RGB Proposed RGB
50 50 Convenonal RGB
Convenonal RGB
45 45 Proposed Gray
Proposed Gray
Convenonal Gray
40 Convenonal Gray 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 Quanzaon Factor 20 Quanzaon Table (Quality)
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4.4
CR 1.6 CR
3.9 Proposed RGB Proposed RGB
1.5 Convenonal RGB
3.4 Convenonal RGB
Proposed Gray 1.4 Proposed Gray
2.9 Convenonal Gray Convenonal Gray
1.3
2.4
1.9 1.2

1.4 1.1

0.9 Quanzaon Factor Quanzaon Table (Quality)

1.0
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

120 60
110 CP 55
CP
100 Proposed RGB Proposed RGB
Convenonal RGB 50 Convenonal RGB
90 Proposed Gray
Proposed Gray
80 Convenonal Gray 45 Convenonal Gray
70 40
60
35
50
40 30

30 Quanzaon Factor 25 Quanzaon Table (Quality)

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Fig. 3 Benchmark Charts of the conventional DCT and the proposed LDR-DCT in JPEG image compression in terms of PSNR, CR, and CP with
different quantization methods and image formats (Grayscale and RGB)

123
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image…
in the dynamic range of the images where it is lower in RGB
images (in terms of quantization tables) compared to the
grayscale images. In this case, the AMBE values of the con-
ventional and the proposed LDR-DCT method are very close
to each other that the difference occurs in the precision, and
therefore the percentage difference should not be used, but
rather the difference with subtraction should be used instead.
According to this format, AMBE changes by less than 0.1
in both grayscale and RGB images, which means that the
brightness change is very small, and then the brightness is
preserved. As the final measure, the BPP increases with the
quality in the quantization tables since there is much less
compression in larger qualities which consequently increases
BPP which is inversely proportional to the compression ratio
(CR).
The experimental outputs are comparatively visualized
with six different benchmark charts in Fig. 3 as follows:
According to Fig. 3, since the quantization factor of 1
and the quantization table with the quality level of 100 are
the same in the action which does not include any quan-
tization process, in these cases, the corresponding results
are shown to observe how the quality is increased in the
absence of quantization. In addition, in the case of quantiza-
tion, the efficiency of the conventional DCT and the proposed
LDR-DCT methods is mainly demonstrated by observing
the inter-correlation between the CR (Compression Ratio)
and the PSNR (Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio) metrics which
is measured by the CP (Compression Performance) metric
that is defined as the product of two metrics dedicated to
showing the true compression performance of both methods.
Since the loss of image quality occurs when there is a gain
in the compression ratio, it is important to observe the ratio
between them.
According to the overall result taken from the benchmark
charts in Fig. 3, the proposed LDR-DCT method has a much
higher compression ratio (CP) with lesser image qualities
(represented by the PSNR) compared to the conventional
DCT method. In all the cases, however, the gain from the
compression ratio (CR) is dramatically higher than the loss
from the image quality which is represented by the PSNR
metric. Therefore, an average calculation of CP is required
to make an overall evaluation. After calculating the average
CP according to the experimental outputs listed in Tables 11
and 12, it is observed that if quantization factors (21 to 121)
are used in the quantization process, the average compression
performance (CP) increases up to about 26% for grayscale
images and about 17% for RGB images. In addition, an aver-
age increase in compression performance (CP) of up to about
8% for grayscale images and about 7% for RGB images when
using standard IrfanView quantization tables (from the qual-
ity level of 40 to the quality level of 90).
Consequently, it is observed that using the quantization
factors instead of quantization tables results in much higher
1867
compression performance while losing the image quality at
much higher amounts. Therefore, the quantization tables play
an important role in this regard, when used in the quan-
tization, the loss of image quality is minimized while the
compression ratio is drastically increased. On the other hand,
when using either a quantization factor of 1 or a standard
IrfanView quantization table with the quality level of 100, in
which neither the quantization nor the compression is per-
formed, it is also observed that there is an average increase
in PSNR value where it increases with up to about 15% in
grayscale images and about 33% in RGB images with respect
to the average PSNR values of 24 images in the KODAK
image dataset.
4 Conclusion
In this study, the conventional DCT equations are improved
in the forward and the inverse transformations to provide a
more powerful JPEG image compression. Considering the
fact in today’s technology that the maximum value a number
can take in a 64-bit register is 264 − 1 (20-digit number),
the proposed method reduces the dynamic range of the DCT
coefficients with respect to their corresponding frequency
levels, and creates a low dynamic range DCT (LDR-DCT)
where fewer precision digits are employed in the DCT calcu-
lations, thereby the rounding errors caused by such limited
capacity of the processors and the resulting such informa-
tion losses caused by this are minimized. The effectiveness
of the proposed LDR-DCT method is first tested by observ-
ing the correlation between the compression ratio and the
peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), defined as compression
performance (CP). An in-depth experimental comparative
study is performed separately using the publicly available
KODAK image dataset in grayscale and RGB color spaces.
According to the experimental results, if quantization fac-
tors (21 to 121) are employed in the quantization process,
the average compression performance (CP) increases up to
about 26% for grayscale images and about 17% for RGB
images. In addition, an average increase in compression per-
formance (CP) of up to about 8% for grayscale images and
about 7% for RGB images is added when using the stan-
dard IrfanView quantization tables (quality level of 40 to the
quality level of 90). On the other hand, when using either
a quantization factor of 1 or a standard IrfanView quantiza-
tion table with the quality level of 100, that is, neither the
quantization and nor the compression is performed, it is also
observed that there exists an average increment in PSNR
value where it increases by up to about 15% in grayscale
images and 33% in RGB images with respect to the average
PSNR values of 24 images in the KODAK image dataset.
Therefore, while the proposed LDR-DCT method without
quantization does not change the compression ratio, it dra-
123
1868
matically improves the quality of the output obtained after
the inverse transformation. To conclude, this study claims
that in such certain areas where compression is not required,
the conventional DCT method should be replaced by the pro-
posed LDR-DCT method, and if the quantization tables are
redesigned accordingly, the proposed LDR-DCT method can
reproduce at least the same JPEG image quality as the con-
ventional DCT method at much higher compression ratios.
5 Data availability
The implemented MATLAB and the Processing Java codes
for this study, the overall experimental results in the Excel and
text documents, the datasets, the original and the processed
images in both grayscale and RGB color spaces, and the
related files are all publicly downloadable for further studies
and examinations in this URL: https://sites.google.com/site/
bulutfaruk/study-of-ldr-dct.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors whose names are listed in this
manuscript declare that there is not any conflict of interest among them
for this article to the journal, The Visual Computer.
References
1. Pang, C.-Y., Zhou, R.-G., Ben-Qiong, Hu., WenWen, Hu., El-Rafei,
A.: Signal and image compression using quantum discrete cosine
transform. Inf. Sci. 473, 121–141 (2019)
2. Dai, J.-Y., Ma, Y., Zhou, N.-R.: Quantum multi-image
compression-encryption scheme based on quantum discrete cosine
transform and 4D hyper-chaotic Henon map. Quantum Inf. Process.
20(7), 1–24 (2021)
3. Hussain, A.J., Al-Fayadh, A., Radi, N.: Image compression tech-
niques: a survey in lossless and lossy algorithms. Neurocomputing
300, 44–69 (2018)
4. Vyas, A., Yu, S., Paik, J.: Fundamentals of digital image processing.
In: Multiscale Transforms with Application to Image Processing,
pp. 3–11. Springer, Singapore (2018)
5. Li, M., Zuo, W., Gu, S., You, J., Zhang, D.: Learning content-
weighted deep image compression. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Mach. Intell. 43(10), 3446–3461 (2020)
6. Cai, C., Chen, Li., Zhang, X., Gao, Z.: End-to-end optimized ROI
image compression. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 29, 3442–3457
(2019)
7. Baig, M.H., Torresani, L.: Multiple hypothesis colorization and its
application to image compression. Comput. Vis. Image Underst.
164, 111–123 (2017)
8. Mishra, D., Singh, S.K., Singh, R.K.: Wavelet-based deep auto
encoder-decoder (WDAED)-based image compression. IEEE
Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 31(4), 1452–1462 (2020)
9. Othman, S., Mohamed, A., Abouali, A., Nossair, Z.: Lossy com-
pression using adaptive polynomial image encoding. Adv. Electr.
Comput. Eng. 21(1), 91–98 (2021)
123
I. F. Ince et al.
10. Jiang, F., Tao, W., Liu, S., Ren, J., Guo, X., Zhao, D.: An end-to-end
compression framework based on convolutional neural networks.
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 28(10), 3007–3018
(2017)
11. Khan, S., Nazir, S., Hussain, A., Ali, A., Ullah, A.: An effi-
cient JPEG image compression based on Haar wavelet transform,
discrete cosine transform, and run length encoding techniques
for advanced manufacturing processes. Meas. Control 52(9–10),
1532–1544 (2019)
12. Santos, L., Lopez, S., Callico, G.M., Lopez, J.F., Sarmiento, R.:
Performance evaluation of the H.264/AVC video coding standard
for lossy hyperspectral image compression. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl.
Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 5(2), 451–461 (2011). https://doi.org/10.
1109/JSTARS.2011.2173906
13. Sullivan, G.J., Ohm, J., Han, W.J., Wiegand, T.: Overview of the
high-efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard. IEEE Trans. Cir-
cuits Syst. Video Technol. 22(12), 1649–1668 (2012)
14. Alshehri, S.A.: Video compression using frame redundancy elim-
ination and discrete cosine transform coefficient reduction. Mul-
timed. Tools Appl. 80(1), 367–381 (2021)
15. Saha, M., Naskar, M.K., Chatterji, B.N.: Advanced wavelet
transform for image processing—a survey. In: Information,
pp. 185–194. Photonics and Communication. Springer, Singapore
(2020)
16. Brahimi, N., Bouden, T., Brahimi, T., Boubchir, L.: A novel and
efficient 8-point DCT approximation for image compression. Mul-
timed. Tools Appl. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-
08325-2
17. Touil, D.E., Terki, N.: Optimized color space for image compres-
sion based on DCT and Bat algorithm. Multimed. Tools Appl. 80,
9547–9567 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09754-0
18. Siddeq, M.M., Rodrigues, M.A.: A novel method for image and
video compression based on two-level DCT with hexadata coding.
Sens. Imaging 21(1), 36 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11220-
020-00302-6
19. Gupta, N., Vijay, R., Gupta, H.K.: Performance analysis of DCT
based lossy compression method with symmetrical encryption
algorithms. EAI End. Trans. Energy Web (2020). https://doi.org/
10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.163976
20. Messaoudi, A., Benchabane, F., Srairi, K.: DCT-based color image
compression algorithm using adaptive block scanning. SIViP 13,
1441–1449 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-019-01492-7
21. Song, H.S., Cho, N.I.: DCT-based embedded image compression
with a new coefficient sorting method. IEEE Signal Process Lett.
16(5), 410–413 (2009)
22. Li, J., Gabbouj, M., Takala, J.: Hybrid modeling of intra-DCT coef-
ficients for real-time video encoding. EURASIP J. Image Video
Process. 2008, 1–13 (2009)
23. Ziad, A.Z., Bellanger, M.G.: Fast DCT-based spatial domain inter-
polation of blocks in images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 9(4),
729–732 (2000)
24. Haweel, T.I.: A new square wave transform based on the DCT”.
Signal Process. 81, 2309–2319 (2001)
25. Alkachouh, Z., Bellanger, M.G.: Fast DCT-based spatial domain
interpolation of blocks in images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 9(4),
729–732 (2000)
26. Liu, S., Bovik, A.C.: Efficient DCT-domain blind measurement and
reduction of blocking artifacts. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video
Technol. 12(12), 1139–1149 (2002)
27. Tang, J.: A contrast-based image fusion technique in the DCT
domain. Digit. Signal Process. 14, 218–226 (2004)
28. Mukherjee, J., Mitra, S.K.: Enhancement of color images by scal-
ing the DCT coefficients. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 17(10),
1783–1794 (2008)
29. Cintra, R.J., Bayer, F.M.: A dct approximation for image compres-
sion. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 18(10), 579–582 (2011)
Low dynamic range discrete cosine transform (LDR-DCT) for high-performance JPEG image… 1869

30. Lina, T.J., Chunga, K.L., et al.: An improved DCT-based per- 50. Thayammal, S., Selvathi, D.: Multispectral band image com-
turbation scheme for high capacity data hiding in H.264/AVC pression using adaptive wavelet transform-tetrolet transform. In:
intra-frames. J. Syst. Softw. 86, 604–614 (2013) Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronics and
31. Jridi, M., Alfalou, A., et al.: A generalized algorithm and recon- Communication Systems (ICECS’14), pp. 1–5, IEEE, (2014)
figurable architecture for efficient and scalable orthogonal approx-
imation of DCT. IEEE Trans. Circuit Syst. I Regul. Pap. 62(2),
449–457 (2015)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
32. Haweel, R.T., El-Kilani, W.S., Ramadan, H.H.: Fast approximate
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
DCT with GPU implementation for image compression. J. Vis.
Commun. Image Represent. 40, 357–365 (2016)
33. Wang, Y., Xu, C., et al.: DCT regularized extreme visual recovery.
IEEE Trans. Image Process. 26(7), 3360–3371 (2017) Ibrahim Furkan Ince received his
34. Almurib, H.A.F., Kumar, T.N., et al.: Approximate DCT image PhD degree in IT convergence
compression using inexact computing. IEEE Trans. Comput. 67(2), design from the Graduate School
149–159 (2018) of Digital Design, Kyungsung
35. Oliveira, R.S., Cintra, R.J., Bayer, F.M., Silveira, T.L.T., University, Pusan, Rep. of Korea,
Madanayake, A., Leite, A.: Low-complexity 8-point DCT approx- in 2010. For post-doctoral stud-
imation based on angle similarity for image and video coding. ies, he participated in research
Multidimens. Syst. Signal Process. 30, 1363–1394 (2019) activities at the University of
36. An, D., Zhang, S., Lu, J., Li, Y.: Efficient and privacy-preserving Tokyo, Japan, from 2010 to 2012.
outsourcing of 2D-DCT and 2D-IDCT. Wirel. Commun. Mobile Currently, he is working as an
Comput. (2020). https://www.hindawi.com/journals/wcmc/2020/ assistant professor at Nişantaşı
8892838/ University, Istanbul, Turkey.
37. Zhao, C.,Tong, C.: Research on dct image compression algorithm His research interests include
based on dynamic energy analysis. In: Proceedings of the Int. Conf. image processing, computer
on Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Manufacturing, 1–5 (2019) vision, pattern recognition and
https://doi.org/10.1145/3358331.3358391. human–computer interaction.
38. Khalaf, W., Al Gburi, A., Zaghar, D.: Pre and postprocessing for
JPEG to handle large monochrome images. Algorithms 12(12), 255
Faruk Bulut received his PhD.
(2019)
degree in Computer Engineering
39. Liu, D., Ma, H., Xiong, Z., Wu, F.: CNN-based DCT-like transform
from Yıldız Technical University,
for image compression. In: Schoeffmann, K., et al. (eds.) MultiMe-
Turkey, in 2015. My dissertation
dia Modeling. MMM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
is about construction and perfor-
vol. 10705, pp. 5–55. Springer, Cham (2018)
mance analysis of locally adap-
40. Almurib, H.A.F., Kumar, T.N., Lombardi, F.: Approximate DCT
tive base and ensemble learners.
image compression using inexact computing. IEEE Trans. Comput.
Also, my major is about image
67(2), 149–159 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2017.2731770
processing, metal learning, expert
41. Dagher, I., Saliba, M., Farah, R.: Combined DCT-haar transforms
systems and optimization meth-
for image compression. Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol. 28, 274–294
ods. I am still a full-time lecturer
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/ima.22286
and researcher in the Istanbul Arel
42. http://r0k.us/graphics/kodak/
University.
43. Strang, G.: The discrete cosine transform. SIAM Rev. 41(1),
135–147 (1999)
44. https://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-quantization.html
45. Mitchell, J.: Digital compression and coding of continuous-tone
still images: requirements and guidelines. ITU-T Recomm. T 81 Ilker Kilic is a lecturer in the Elec-
(1992) trical and Electronics Engineering
46. Bharadwaj, N.A., Rao, C.S., Gururaj, C.: Optimized data compres- department of Pamukkale Univer-
sion through effective analysis of JPEG standard. In: Proceedings sity. He had the PhD degree in
of the 2021 International Conference on Emerging Smart Comput- 2003 on image and video pro-
ing and Informatics (ESCI), pp. 110–115, IEEE (2021) cessing from Dokuz Eylul Uni-
47. CCITT Recommendation.: T.81 Int. Tele. Union. Information versity in TURKEY. His studies
technology-digital compression and coding of continuous-tone still focus on image processing, trans-
images – requirements and guidelines (1992) form techniques, image segmenta-
48. Bulut, F.: Low dynamic range histogram equalization (LDR-HE) tion and bio-inspired optimization
via quantized Haar wavelet transform. Vis. Comput. (2021). https:// algorithms.
doi.org/10.1007/s00371-021-02281-5
49. Ince, I.F., Ince, O.F., Bulut, F.: MID Filter: An Orientation-Based
Nonlinear Filter For Reducing Multiplicative Noise. Electronics
8(9), 936 (2019)

123
1870 I. F. Ince et al.

Mustafa Eren Yildirim received his Ömer Faruk Ince received his BS
BS degree in Electrical Engineer- degree in Electrical and Elec-
ing from Bahcesehir University, tronics Engineering from Isik
Istanbul, Turkey, in 2008 and his University, Istanbul, Turkey in
MS and PhD degrees in Electron- 2012. In 2015 and 2018, he,
ics Engineering from the Gradu- respectively, received his MS
ate School of Electrical and Elec- and PhD degrees in Electron-
tronics Engineering, Kyungsung ics Engineering from Kyungsung
University, Pusan, Rep. of Korea, University, Korea. After earning
in 2010 and 2014, respectively. his PhD, he joined and continues
He worked as a researcher and to work for the Korea Institute
lecturer for Kyungsung Univer- of Science and Technology in the
sity until August 2015. He is cur- Center for Intelligent & Interac-
rently holding two assistant pro- tive Robotics as a post-doctoral
fessor positions in the Department researcher.
of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Bahcesehir University and
the Department of Electronics Engineering, Kyungsung University.
His research interests include image processing, computer vision, and
pattern recognition.

Author and Affiliations

Ibrahim Furkan Ince1,2 · Faruk Bulut3 · Ilker Kilic4 · Mustafa Eren Yildirim1,5 · Omer Faruk Ince6,7

Ibrahim Furkan Ince 1 Department of Electronics Engineering, Kyungsung

furkanince@ks.ac.kr; ibrahim.ince@nisantasi.edu.tr
https://scholar.google.com.tr/citations?user=l4BI-
VMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
Ilker Kilic
ilkerk@pau.edu.tr
https://scholar.google.com.tr/citations?user=5JABxc8AAAAJ&hl
Mustafa Eren Yildirim
mustafaeren.yildirim@eng.bau.edu.tr
https://scholar.google.com.tr/citations?user=EiEjHqIAAAAJ&hl=en
Omer Faruk Ince
023967@kist.re.kr; faruk.ince@nisantasi.edu.tr
https://scholar.google.com.tr/citations?user=Ys1ISScAAAAJ&hl=en
University, Busan, South Korea
2
Department of Digital Game Design, Nisantasi University,
Istanbul, Turkey
3
Department of Computer Engineering, Istanbul Arel
University, Istanbul, Turkey
4 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
5 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
6
Center for Intelligent and Interactive Robotics, Korea Institute
of Science and Technology, Seoul 02792, Korea
7 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nisantasi
University, Istanbul, Turkey

123